get_camera_asset_info

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape and the SingleCameraDirector-specific rig field – output context not available via annotations (no output schema). It adds little on permissions or failure modes, but the behavioral profile is well covered.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the return contract, with zero wasted words. Well structured for a simple read tool.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields, and the tool's single param is fully documented in the schema. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing; only minor edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens when has_director is false) is left implicit.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('/Game/... path to the UCameraAsset (required)'), so the schema carries full meaning. The description adds nothing about the path beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Reports) and resource (UCameraAsset's director and rig), and the 'Read-only' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling write tool set_camera_asset_director. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 is only implied by the 'Read-only' framing – an agent can infer this is the inspection path versus set_camera_asset_director. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, so it stays at minimum-viable.

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