ue5_list_pie_actors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the runtime-only nature (UEDPIE_0_ paths), the filter combination possibilities, and result capping via limit. The phrasing 'and/or' leaves filter combination semantics slightly ambiguous, but for a passive enumeration the behavioral surface is well covered.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded in sentence one, then a compact summary of filtering behavior. The short Chinese suffix is a consistent bilingual pattern across the tool family and does not add noise.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, filters, and limit. Minor gaps remain: it never states what the returned entries look like (names vs paths) or what happens without an active PIE session, but these are modest for an enumerate operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema ('Filter by actor_class and/or name_filter substring; limit caps the result count') rather than adding new meaning beyond confirming the filters can be combined.

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 ('Enumerate') and resource ('live Actors in the PIE world'), and adds the distinctive detail that runtime paths contain UEDPIE_0_. This clearly separates it from ue5_list_assets, which targets content-browser assets rather than runtime actors.

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 scopes the tool to live PIE world objects, giving an agent clear context for when to call it (inspecting a running Play-In-Editor session). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating exclusions such as 'not for asset enumeration', so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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