get_asset_lod_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the exact response shape, the conditional LODGroup field (StaticMesh only), and a deliberate gotcha (no lod-bias field). That is real value beyond the annotations.

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 verb+resource, then the inverse relationship, then the return shape — good ordering with little waste. The dangling 'see the note below' reference points to a note that isn't present, a small structural blemish.

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 fully by inlining the return structure including nested per-LOD fields and optionality. Asset-class caveats and the missing-field warning round out everything an agent needs to call and interpret it.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the path must resolve to a UStaticMesh or USkeletalMesh. Minor added value on top of the schema-documented asset_path.

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 resource (a mesh's LOD config), names the inverse sibling set_asset_lod_settings, and scopes it to UStaticMesh or USkeletalMesh. An agent can tell instantly what this returns versus the setter counterpart.

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?

Framing it as the 'inverse of set_asset_lod_settings' gives a clear read-vs-write context, and it names the valid asset classes. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from nearby introspection tools (e.g. get_static_mesh_info / get_skeletal_mesh_lod_info), so no explicit exclusion is given.

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