get_ability_activation_info

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description goes further by disclosing that no activation data is actually read, that the operation is editor-time and asset-loading, and that invalid asset paths produce an error. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action, then adds caveats, alternative tools, and the return shape. Every sentence carries useful information, including the explicit Returns block for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Given the single-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, what is not returned, the editor-time/read-only behavior, error conditions, and sibling-tool alternatives.

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 input schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful constraint beyond the schema: the path must resolve to a GameplayAbility Blueprint, otherwise it is an error. It does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so a 4 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource: 'Read the AssetTags of a GameplayAbility Blueprint from its class default object.' It names exactly what is returned (ability_tags, asset_tag_count, ability_name) and explicitly clarifies what the tool does not do despite its name. It also distinguishes itself from configure_ability_tags and get_ability_info by naming those siblings and their differing roles.

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 conditions are explicit: read-only, editor-time, no actor or PIE needed, and a non-GameplayAbility Blueprint path is an error. The description also names alternatives: configure_ability_tags for writing these tags and get_ability_info for reading an ability granted to an actor, making it clear when to choose each tool.

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