get_data_layer_asset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete field set returned, but discloses no auth needs, rate limits, or behavior on missing/invalid assets.

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?

One compact sentence plus a return-shape block; front-loaded and no filler. Slightly more verbose than a minimal implementation but every part is meaningful.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the explicit return-field list is genuinely useful so the agent knows what it will receive. It stops short of mentioning failure modes or path-format edge cases, but the core is complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single param is fully documented in the schema ('Full /Game path to the data layer asset'). The description adds no syntax detail beyond that, so it just clears the baseline.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('UDataLayerAsset') plus the exact fields returned (type, debug color, runtime flags). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_data_layer_assets (a list) and set_data_layer_type (a mutation).

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 implied by the read-only nature and the single required asset path, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives (e.g., get_data_layer_assets for listing) is given.

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