editor_box_collider_details

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

The read-only framing matches readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. It adds the meaningful condition that the collider must be 'loaded' and names the returned fields, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/non-collider actor, which matters for a lookup tool keyed on a GUID.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the field list attached rather than split into filler prose. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with an annotation and an output schema, the description covers what is returned and the loaded-collider precondition. Only failure-mode behavior is missing, which is a minor gap here.

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 coverage is 100% for the single actorId parameter, including the note that the GUID comes from editor_scene_graph. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns') and resource (BoxCollider details for a loaded actor) and enumerates the fields returned, so it is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like editor_set_box_collider. It does not explicitly contrast with editor_actor_details or editor_static_model_details, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'loaded' hints at a prerequisite, and the schema points to editor_scene_graph for the actorId. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over editor_actor_details or what to do if the actor has no BoxCollider.

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