create_bt_wander_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the internal algorithm (GetRandomReachablePointInRadius), the side effect (sets WanderTarget Blackboard key), and the return contract (Success if point found, Failure otherwise). This goes well beyond what the schema alone could tell the agent.

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 well-structured and efficient: a lead sentence, a compact behavior summary, an Args block, a KB pointer, and an example. Every section adds value, and the most important purpose is front-loaded before the implementation details.

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?

The description provides the algorithm, parameter semantics, a knowledge base reference, and an example call. It is complete enough for a BT task creation tool, though it could optionally clarify that the resulting asset is a Blueprint class and whether a navigable area must already exist; these are minor gaps given the output schema exists.

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 compensates by listing each parameter with a meaningful explanation: name is the Task Blueprint name, wander_radius is the search radius, path is the content browser path. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what each argument controls, though the explanations are brief.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Behavior Tree Task for random wandering.' It further specifies the concrete behavior (find random reachable point, set it to a Blackboard key, return Success/Failure), which distinguishes this from generic create_bt_task or create_bt_attack_task. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 clear usage context: it is for enemy wandering behavior using the Navigation system to find random reachable locations within a radius. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the phrase 'random wandering' and 'enemy wandering behavior' gives a clear, actionable scenario.

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