get_trigger_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces that it 'changes nothing' and, importantly for a tool with no output schema, discloses the returned field set (collision_profile, overlap_events_enabled, begin/end bound, callback_bound), which is behavior the annotations do not carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences followed by a compact Returns block; the core action and scope are front-loaded with no filler. The aside about 'blaming the gameplay code' is mildly conversational but does double duty as usage guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything missing elsewhere: what is inspected, the trigger-vs-sibling distinction, the safety framing, and the exact return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single actor_name parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description hints at the target ('an actor's primitive component') but adds no format, resolution, or naming detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (read the overlap-event configuration of an actor's primitive component) and enumerates the exact facets read: collision profile, overlap-event enablement, and bound begin/end handlers. It also names its inverse sibling set_trigger_events, so an agent can separate it from get_trigger_info or get_trigger_overlap_count without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: verifying a trigger is 'really armed before blaming the gameplay code,' and frames it as the read-only counterpart of set_trigger_events. It does not explicitly exclude the neighboring get_trigger_info / get_trigger_overlap_count, so the routing is clear but not fully disambiguated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.