get_asset_bundle_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it clarifies this loads nothing, and that unscanned assets, unknown bundles, malformed ids, and empty bundles all return found=false with an empty list rather than an error. That non-obvious failure semantics is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core operation and cache source come first, followed by failure semantics, then routing to siblings, then the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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 two-param read tool with full schema/annotation coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it reads, where from, what 'no result' looks like, and which sibling handles the adjacent case. No output schema exists, yet the return fields are summarized in one line.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema with format hints ("Type:Name" for primary_asset_id). The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, only the 'malformed id' failure behavior, so 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 (read) and a precisely bounded resource: one named asset bundle of a primary asset from the running Asset Manager's bundle cache, naming the underlying UAssetManager::GetAssetBundleEntry call. It distinguishes itself from get_asset_bundle_data by specifying the source (Asset Manager bundle cache vs Asset Registry).

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?

Explicitly names alternatives and the conditions that select them: use get_asset_bundle_data for every bundle of one asset by object path (Asset Registry), and get_primary_asset_id to turn a path into the id. It also bounds applicability by stating only scanned primary assets are cached.

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