list_orphaned_ofpa_actors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: it never loads a package, never opens or swaps to map_path, describes the three enumeration layers most-to-least authoritative, and explains why candidates are reported as candidate_unconfirmed instead of a false-confident confirmed_orphan.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the layered mechanism and a structured Returns block. It is dense and long, and the read-only statement slightly overlaps the annotations, but nearly every sentence carries operational weight for a genuinely complex tool.

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 high-complexity diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description supplies an explicit Returns field list (map_path, counts, live_cross_check_available, candidates with classification, note) and covers the edge cases around open-world vs other-map invocation, leaving nothing essential unstated.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds meaning by tying map_path to the layer-3 cross-check outcome (current vs different map changes results) and by clarifying filter_generated_class matches against the zero-load AssetClassPath.

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+resource: finds __ExternalActors__ (OFPA) packages with no registered World Partition descriptor. It explicitly distinguishes the target from siblings by noting the actors are invisible to get_actors_by_class/list_world_partition_actors, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other 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?

Gives clear operational context: the recommended procedure is to clean up orphans with the editor on another map, and it explains that layer 3 is only available when map_path is the currently open world. It implies when this tool applies (orphan cleanup) but never states an explicit use-this-not-that rule against a named alternative.

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