get_behavior_config_info

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 adds genuinely new context: the read is done 'by reflection' and the field is 'protected', and it supplies the return shape since no output schema exists. Only a minor gap is that it doesn't say what happens when has_behavior_class is false.

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-loaded with the read action, followed by routing guidance and a compact Returns block. The Returns line is slightly redundant with the prose but earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 single-parameter read tool whose annotations fully cover the safety profile, this is complete: it names the input, the three output fields, and the two sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents config_path with a concrete example path, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) plus a precise resource (the protected BehaviorClass of a UGameplayBehaviorConfig asset) and enumerates the three fields it extracts. An agent can distinguish it from sibling readers like get_behavior_config_info vs list_behavior_configs without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent: to set the value use set_behavior_class, to enumerate all configs use list_behavior_configs. This is a clear when-to-use-this vs use-alternative statement with named siblings.

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