get_selected_actors

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

Even without annotations, the description clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects ('Get'). It conveys the basic behavioral trait of returning the current selection. Since an output schema exists, no need to detail return values. A minor gap is no explicit statement about being non-destructive, but it's clear enough.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 getter with zero parameters and an output schema, the description is completely adequate. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does without requiring further elaboration. No additional context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because no parameter details are needed and the description adds no additional semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'actors currently selected in the Unreal Editor'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'select_actors' (which selects) and 'get_actor_info' (which gets info on a specific actor) by specifying the selection 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_actor_info', 'list_level_actors', or 'select_actors'. The description does not mention context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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