get_cine_camera_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Pure reader; mutates nothing' largely repeats structured data. The description does add real value by spelling out the complete return object (filmback/lens/focus fields plus computed FOVs) in the absence of an output schema, though it omits failure behavior when the actor is missing or lacks a CineCameraComponent.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the return-shape sentence is dense but justified because no output schema exists. The one redundancy is 'Pure reader; mutates nothing,' which duplicates the annotations, but overall the length is proportionate to the tool's complex output.

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 read tool with rich annotations and a one-parameter schema, the description is complete: it names the target component, enumerates every returned field group including derived focal length/aperture/focus distance and FOVs, and states the no-mutation guarantee. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result without an output schema.

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 single parameter actor_name is documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces that the actor is a CineCameraActor, adding no new syntax, constraints, or naming conventions beyond the structured field, 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (full cine-camera configuration) scoped to a CineCameraActor's CineCameraComponent, then enumerates the exact sub-areas covered (filmback, lens, focus, current values). The reader/mutator distinction is explicit, so an agent can separate it from the set_cine_camera_* siblings at a glance.

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 sentence 'Read the full cine-camera configuration off a CineCameraActor's CineCameraComponent' gives clear context for when this tool applies, and the exhaustive field list implies it is the comprehensive reader. However, it names no alternative (e.g. get_camera_asset_info or get_cameras) and gives no when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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