get_selected_actors

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only action ('Return') and clarifies the scope ('UEFN editor viewport/outliner'), but it does not mention output format, edge cases (e.g., empty selection), or any potential side effects. It is not misleading, but it lacks depth that would help an agent anticipate behavior beyond a simple fetch.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler words. Every word earns its place; it is an ideal length and structure.

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 simple getter with no parameters and an output schema present. The description fully explains the tool's function in its domain ('selected actors'). No further detail is needed, especially since the output schema covers return structure.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description adequately fulfills the need by explaining what the tool does without requiring parameter context. The description adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 ('Return') and resource ('actors'), and scopes it precisely to 'currently selected in the UEFN editor viewport/outliner'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_actors (which lists all actors) and get_actor_transform (which gets a property of an actor).

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving the current selection in the editor. It implies the appropriate use case without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion scenarios. The description is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it, though it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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