get_component_state_tree_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that it operates on a UStateTreeComponent on a placed actor and by disclosing the return shape, including has_state_tree_component, which signals how absence of a component is reported.

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 first, return fields second. Every part is useful, especially the return shape since no output schema exists.

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 simple read-only getter with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single parameter, the description is nearly complete. It provides the return structure but does not cover failure behavior such as an actor label that cannot be found.

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 is already documented as the actor label/name to inspect. The description reinforces that the actor is 'placed' but adds no syntax, format, or lookup semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (UStateTreeComponent on a placed actor) and what it returns. It is clear and distinct in resource from most siblings, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from adjacent tools like get_component_properties or state tree asset tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it does but does not say when to choose it, when not to, or which sibling covers related lookups.

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