add_get_all_actors_of_class_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the node returns an array at runtime and that it is expensive to execute every tick. However, it does not describe side effects on the Blueprint graph, prerequisites such as blueprint existence, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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?

The description is efficiently organized: purpose, behavior, use cases, performance note, arguments, KB reference, and example. The bullet-style Args section is easy to scan, and the performance warning is front-loaded after the use cases. Minor clutter like 'Ch.3:' does not significantly hurt readability.

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 Blueprint node-adding operation, the description covers what the node does, when to use it, cost implications, parameter meanings, a KB link, and an invocation example. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not strictly required. It could be more complete by naming alternative tools or clarifying blueprint prerequisites, but the core context an agent needs is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters and adds meaning: actor_class is explained with examples ('TargetPoint', 'BP_Enemy'), node_position is described as 'Optional [X, Y] graph position', and blueprint_name appears in a realistic example path. It does not restate defaults, but the added semantics are meaningful.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Add') and the exact resource ('Get All Actors Of Class' node), then explains the behavior: 'Returns an array of all actors of the specified class in the level.' The 'all' wording distinguishes it from the singular sibling add_get_actor_of_class_node, and the use-case mention of patrol points and enemies clarifies what this node is for.

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?

The description gives explicit use cases: 'Used to find patrol points (TargetPoint actors) or iterate over enemies.' It also provides a clear when-not guidance: 'Expensive operation - avoid calling every tick.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this node is appropriate.

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