list_level_widget_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it reads GEditor's editor world (not PIE), and it lists every widget component on an actor rather than just the first, which affects result completeness expectations. Slightly dense, but valuable behavioral disclosure.

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-loads the imperative 'CALL THIS FIRST' and the scope before the caveats, which is correct ordering. It is long and somewhat repetitive across the WARNING and blueprint-contrast sentences, but nearly every clause conveys routing or trap-avoidance information.

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?

Despite no formal output schema, the description documents the return shape (components array with actor_name, widget_component_name, widget_name, widget_class, component_count, actor_name_filter). Combined with the scope, alternative routing, and the blueprint-vs-level trap, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter and the input schema already documents it fully (100% coverage, 'substring filter on the owning actor's name (Contains match)'). The description does not extend that semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter explanation.

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 ('enumerates ALL UWidgetComponents on ALL actors of the current EDITOR level') and identifies the exact population that get_widget_properties/set_widget_visibility/get_widget_hierarchy/remove_widget search by. It also explicitly separates this from Widget Blueprint assets, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit 'CALL THIS FIRST' plus concrete routing: use read_pie_widgets for a running PIE session, and get_widget_blueprint_tree / set_widget_property / set_widget_slot_properties to author Widget Blueprint content. The when-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all named with their selecting conditions.

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