get_behavior_subsystem_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by noting there are no parameters and by disclosing the hard dependency the sibling behavior tools have on this subsystem's existence, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a return sketch; the core purpose and the dependency caveat are front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's inline Returns shape (world_name, subsystem_available, subsystem_class) is exactly what the agent needs. With zero params and annotations covering safety, the definition is complete for this tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'no parameters' and instead documents the return payload, which is the only semantics that matter here.

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 ('Report whether the editor world has...') plus the concrete resource (UGameplayBehaviorSubsystem::GetCurrent) and the exact fields returned. The class-level specificity distinguishes it from the generic subsystem siblings (get_subsystem_instance, list_subsystem_instances), though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

Gives a real usage rationale: trigger_behavior_on_actor and end_behavior_on_actor fail without this subsystem, which tells the agent when the check is required. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative tool, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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