get_function_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations don't: the split input/return lists, the full flag set, and the hard-error consequence of an unknown key when calling downstream tools. It stops short of stating behavior for missing classes/functions, so not a 5.

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, followed by usage rationale and the return contract. Every sentence is informative, though the long enumerations (five boolean flags, three consumer tools) make it denser than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies a complete Returns block with every field and its type. Combined with the usage rationale and schema-documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it and consume the result.

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%; both class_name (bare UClass via FindFirstObject, no asset path) and function_name (exact declaration, spaces preserved) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so the 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 and resource ('Inspect ONE UFUNCTION on a class') and immediately differentiates from the sibling get_class_functions by noting it 'lumps them together' while this tool splits inputs and returns. An agent can distinguish this from other introspection tools without opening the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to run it: to learn the PARAMETER NAMES for call_function's `parameters`, call_object_method's `args_json`, or call_component_function's `params`, and warns that an unknown key is a hard error. This is a clear when-to-use with the downstream consumers named.

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