get_default_game_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the dual-source read (memory CDO plus on-disk INI), the default disk check, and the memory_matches_disk discrepancy signal, which together explain how a write-persistence mismatch is surfaced.

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?

Front-loads the core read behavior, then supplies a Returns block that is genuinely needed because no output schema exists. It is slightly dense with one long first sentence, but no content is wasted or redundant.

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 provides the return shape (editor_startup_map, game_default_map, ini_path, disk_value, memory_matches_disk, disk_checks), which is the key gap covered. Minor gaps remain: it does not explain the return shape when include_disk_value is false or what each disk_checks entry contains.

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 include_disk_value parameter, so the schema already documents the default-true behavior and the FConfigFile::Read detail. The description echoes the default disk read but adds no new parameter meaning, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 read of two named UGameMapsSettings properties (EditorStartupMap and GameDefaultMap) from both the in-memory CDO and Config/DefaultEngine.ini. This is clearly distinguishable from the write-side sibling set_default_game_map and from generic config readers like get_project_settings_value.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: the default disk re-read exists 'so a memory-only write cannot masquerade as a persisted one,' telling an agent to use this when verifying that a map setting actually persisted. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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