get_camera_post_process

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so credit goes to what the description adds: it discloses the non-obvious filtering behavior that only fields with bOverride_* enabled are returned, and spells out value encodings (wheels as [R,G,B,master], tint as [R,G,B,A]). This meaningfully exceeds the annotation coverage.

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 front-load the resource and the key scoping constraint (overridden-only), followed by a structured Returns block. Given there is no output schema, the return-shape sentence earns its place rather than padding.

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 correctly documents the return object, field-by-field encodings, and the overridden-only semantics, and it cross-references the mirroring set tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears to be 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% for the single actor_name parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no further parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

It states a specific verb (read) and resource (the overridden PostProcessSettings on a camera actor's camera component), and explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling set_camera_post_process by naming it as the inverse it mirrors. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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?

The description routes the agent by noting it 'mirrors set_camera_post_process's field set' and is a 'pure reader', clearly implying the read-vs-write split. It gives clear context but states no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. what happens if the actor has no camera component).

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