find_actors_by_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior; it states the search scope (placed actors by class name/path) but offers no detail on matching semantics, query scope, or limitations. It does not disclose whether matching is fuzzy, partial, or global versus level-scoped. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single clear sentence states the operation, followed by a KB link and one concrete call example. There is no filler or repeated schema text.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required. Yet the description omits exact semantics and any distinction from closely related lookup tools; the KB link may help but is not inline. It is adequate for a basic query, but has clear gaps.

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 explain both parameters. It clarifies that class_name accepts a native or Blueprint-generated class name/path and gives a one-parameter example, but it never explains the exact boolean or its default behavior. This is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 first sentence names the action ('Find'), the resource ('placed actors'), and the input scope ('native or Blueprint-generated class name/path'), so an agent can tell this is an actor lookup by class. It is distinguishable from siblings like find_actors_by_name and ue_find_assets_by_class even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over find_actors_by_name, get_actors_in_level, or ue_find_assets_by_class, and there are no 'when not to use' caveats. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Find placed actors by class'; the KB link is a pointer, not routing guidance.

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