unreal_actor_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false detach. The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: 'Returns one coherent measurement state; absent bounds and truncated material lists are explicit.' This discloses output semantics and edge-case handling, and 'No scene change or cloud call' reinforces side-effect expectations without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences achieve complete, front-loaded communication: the first states the purpose, the second gives constraints and output behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 has one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations. The description covers the core purpose, path existence requirement, and result semantics, including explicit handling of absent or truncated data. Nothing required for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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 the sole parameter, actor_paths. It does by specifying that paths must exist in the editor world and must correspond to exact loaded actors. It does not spell out path format, but for a single array-of-strings parameter with schema constraints on length/count, this is sufficient added meaning.

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 and resource: 'Inspect exact loaded actors, world bounds, materials and native edit blockers.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like unreal_actors or unreal_asset_details by naming distinct inspection targets and the precision ('exact loaded actors') of the operation.

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 provides clear context for use: 'All paths must exist in the editor world' and 'No scene change or cloud call.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5, but the constraints and non-mutating nature are effectively communicated.

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