list_replicated_actors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the description's extra value is the bReplicates=true eligibility semantics and the note that it is a cheap pre-PIE alternative. It does not say anything about cost on large worlds or any result cap, so it stops short of a 5.

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 what is enumerated and the filter, then the differentiators, then the return shape. No sentence is redundant; the return block is compact and earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return structure ({world_name, total, role_filter?, actors:[...]}), the role filter domain, and the sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the schema already states the parameter is an optional case-insensitive ENetRole string, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating the accepted values (Authority | SimulatedProxy | AutonomousProxy | None), which the schema lacks as an enum, adding real meaning.

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 (enumerate) and resource (actors with bReplicates=true) and pins the scope to the EDITOR world. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_replication_info (per-actor detail) and audit_replication (project-wide Blueprint sweep), so an agent can route 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?

Gives the exact selection condition ('the cheap way to find what is even eligible to replicate before spending a PIE session on it') and names both alternatives with the scenario that picks each. Nothing is left to inference.

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