get_actor_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool reads live instances, describes two output modes, and details parameters affecting behavior (flat, filter, include_components, etc.). There are no contradictions with annotations because none exist. The description is thorough and transparent.

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 fairly concise given the complexity, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by a helpful comparison and a well-structured list of arguments. It is front-loaded and logical, but could be slightly more concise (e.g., merging some 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?

For a tool with 12 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers most behaviors and modes. It explains the critical distinction from CDO and the two output modes. However, it omits documentation for four parameters (cursor, category, max_entries, include_inherited), leaving some gaps for complete understanding.

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. It explains key parameters like actor_label, filter, include_components, flat, max_depth, include_metadata, expand_arrays, and array_element_limit with meaningful details (e.g., filter behavior differs by mode). However, it does not explain cursor, category, max_entries, or include_inherited, leaving a gap for those.

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's purpose: getting property values from a live actor instance. It distinguishes itself from get_blueprint_class_defaults (CDO) by emphasizing that it reads the placed instance with per-instance overrides. This directly helps an agent select the correct tool among siblings.

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 explicitly contrasts with get_blueprint_class_defaults and explains when to use nested vs flat mode based on the user's need (quick inspection vs AI search). However, it does not mention other alternatives or when not to use this tool, missing some comprehensive guidance.

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