get_engine_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context they don't carry: the co-op PIE world-context semantics where host and each client are separate worlds, which materially affects how the result should be interpreted.

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 what it reads, then usage, then siblings, then return shape. The trailing 'Returns' block partly restates fields already listed inline (engine_name, engine_class, worlds), a minor redundancy, but it does pin down the count and array shape.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return object keys and giving the interpretive context (world types, has_game_instance, co-op PIE) needed to read the result correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly focuses on output shape instead.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ('Read') and the exact resources (GEngine object, world contexts) and enumerates the fields returned. An agent can distinguish it from get_game_instance_info and editor_status without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case (confirming multiple worlds exist, e.g. co-op PIE host + clients) and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: get_game_instance_info when the GameInstance class is needed, editor_status when only an aliveness probe is required.

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