diff_collision_channels

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral nuance: it reads the other project's DefaultEngine.ini straight from disk rather than a loaded config, and it aligns channels by name rather than by index. This is useful context beyond the safety profile, though it doesn't discuss failure modes when the ini is missing (beyond the other_ini_found field).

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, follows with the diagnostic rationale, then the disk-read caveat, and finally the return shape. Despite covering a lot of ground, every sentence adds distinct information with no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the full return structure including matched/only_in_this/only_in_other arrays, giving the agent what it needs to interpret results. It is essentially complete for a one-parameter diagnostic tool, though the meaning of aligned_by values is left implicit.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented there (Config dir with root fallback). The description only adds the contextual note that the file is read from disk, which does not extend the parameter's syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs (aligns, reports, diagnoses) on a specific resource (this project's custom collision channels vs another project's config), and the parenthetical naming ECC_GameTraceChannelN / TraceTypeQueryN pinpoints exactly what is produced. It is unambiguously distinct from collision siblings like list_collision_channels or audit_collision_profiles.

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?

Describes the triggering scenario well ('the migration hazard where custom channels don't travel and traces silently stop hitting'), telling the agent when this tool is relevant. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. diff_project_config or list_collision_channels) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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