get_trigger_overlap_count

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuine context: the accepted trigger types, the explicit 'without changing anything' guarantee, the edge-case failure ('fails if the first actor matching the name is not a trigger'), and the return shape. These are real behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the cheap-alternative framing, then the failure mode. It is efficient, but the return value is stated twice ('Returns actor_name and overlap_count' and 'Returns: { actor_name, overlap_count }'), which is slight redundancy.

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 read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, failure condition, and the return fields inline, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Nothing essential is missing, though the duplicated return line is minor clutter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the actor_name parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or editor label, first match wins). The description adds only a hint about the 'first actor matching' rule, so it neither compensates nor detracts. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (count) and resource (actors overlapping a TriggerBox/Sphere/Volume) and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_actors_in_trigger by calling itself 'the cheap form' of it. An agent can tell exactly what is returned and how it differs from the sibling.

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?

It names the alternative (get_actors_in_trigger) and positions itself as the lightweight version, which implies when to prefer it. However, it doesn't state an explicit when-not condition (e.g., use the other when you need actor lists), leaving a small inference gap.

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