get_exponential_height_fog_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real signal by disclosing the full return structure and property names (fog_density, ... , directional_inscattering_color), which no annotation provides, and there is no output schema to carry it.

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 one sentence, followed by the return enumeration. The long property list is verbose but earns its place since there is no output schema and it tells the agent exactly what keys to expect.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the remaining gap would be return values, and the description supplies the complete property inventory. Only the omission of value types (beyond the color arrays) and error behavior keeps it from a 5.

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 actor_name parameter is already documented in the schema as the target actor's label/name. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already states, so 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 (ExponentialHeightFog actor's UExponentialHeightFogComponent properties), and explicitly ties itself to the sibling set_exponential_height_fog_properties by naming the pair ('under the names set_exponential_height_fog_properties takes'). An agent can immediately tell this is the read complement of that setter.

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 reference to the setter establishes clear context: this reads back the exact property names the setter consumes, which is useful for round-tripping values. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternative read tools, but for a single-purpose getter the context is clear.

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