get_camera_rig_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' merely restates it. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing the conditional output shape: children appear only when the root is a composite ArrayCameraNode, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape appended. Given there is no output schema, the inline return structure earns its space, though the dense brace notation is slightly less readable than a prose summary would be.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields, and it flags the conditional children. The main remaining gap is the absence of any when-to-use signal among the many camera and rig getters, but for a single-parameter read tool the description is otherwise sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the '/Game/... path to the UCameraRigAsset' format. The description adds no syntax or constraint beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a precise verb and resource: it reports a camera rig's RootNode class, its parameter fields, and children for composite ArrayCameraNode roots. This is far more specific than the name alone and lets an agent predict the payload. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with nearby read siblings such as get_camera_asset_info or list_camera_node_types.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives and no stated preconditions beyond the required path (which lives in the schema). The 'Read-only' note is a safety statement, not a usage condition. The agent must infer the use case from the purpose text alone.

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