get_actor_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Return,' but it does not explain what happens with no arguments, whether include_all changes scope, what is returned when actor_name_or_label is empty, or any failure/error behavior.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a compact example plus KB pointer. It is efficient, though some of the space could have been used for parameter semantics.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits crucial invocation context: how to target a specific actor, what include_all actually includes, and what happens when both parameters use defaults. The example suggests a zero-argument call is valid, but the behavior of that call is not explained.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the interaction between actor_name_or_label and include_all, the meaning of 'label' vs 'object name', and default behavior are left undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and explicitly lists the identity data returned: actor labels, object names, full paths, classes, and Blueprint generated-class paths. This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from spawning, finding, or mutating actors, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus related tools like find_actors_by_name, find_actors_by_class, get_actor_properties, or get_actors_in_level. The description only shows an example call and a KB reference, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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