get_actor_transform

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns location/rotation/scale and implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify behavior for invalid labels, return format details, or error handling. This is partial transparency, sufficient for a simple getter but lacking edge-case context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function and parameter role. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail, making it highly 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It indicates the return data (world transform) but does not specify exact return structure or error behavior. Given the simple nature, this is nearly complete, only slightly lacking in output precision.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by clarifying that the 'label' parameter identifies the actor ('with the given label'). It clearly ties the parameter to its purpose, though it does not elaborate on label format or constraints. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'world transform (location/rotation/scale) of the actor with the given label'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_actor_transform (which mutates) and list_actors (which lists actors) by explicitly stating the action and scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve an actor's transform) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not mention that set_actor_transform is for modifying transforms or that list_actors can be used to find labels, so guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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