find_actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies a read-only operation, and the note that limit is 'clamped by the plugin' adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permissions, or any other runtime behavior an agent might need.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a clean Args block. Every line earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose and all parameters, but it omits usage routing and explicit safety behavior, leaving minor gaps for an agent selecting among many sibling tools.

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, and it largely does: all three parameters are explained with matching semantics, including examples for class_filter and the clamping behavior for limit. It stops short of details like case sensitivity or matching rules, but the meaning of each parameter is clear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find actors in the current editor or PIE world.' The scope is clear enough to distinguish from domain-specific search tools like bp_search or wwise_query, but the description does not explicitly name or exclude any sibling tool.

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 scope 'current editor or PIE world' implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is left to inference.

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