spatial_query_actors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Find actors' and gives an example; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how include_hidden or include_components affect results, what happens when both radius and box are supplied, or any other behavioral characteristics beyond the stated filter capability.

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: the core capability appears in the first sentence, followed by a KB pointer and a concrete example. There is no fluff or repetition. It could be slightly more structured, but for its length it is efficient.

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?

This is a 10-parameter query tool with no annotations and an output schema, but the description still leaves significant gaps: it does not clarify spatial coordinate semantics, required pairings between center/radius or box_min/box_max, filter combination behavior, defaults, or the meaning of include_hidden and include_components. The example helps but is not sufficient for the full parameter surface.

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 for 10 undocumented parameters. It partially does by mentioning name, class, tag, radius, and bounding box, and by showing an example with query, center, and radius values. However, it leaves limit, include_hidden, include_components, box_min/box_max relationships, and default behaviors unexplained.

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 tool finds actors and enumerates the filter dimensions: name, class, tag, radius, and/or bounding box. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_actors_by_name and find_actors_by_class by implying a combined/spatial query, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as find_actors_by_name, find_actors_by_class, or get_actors_in_level. The example demonstrates a valid call but does not state when this broader spatial/combined query is preferred or when a simpler sibling would suffice.

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