get_game_mode_info

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 the useful context that it inspects the CDO's class slots and the world settings override, but says nothing about behavior when the class is missing, whether unset slots return null, or any auth/context requirements.

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-loaded with the read scope, then the return shape. The exhaustive field list is somewhat long but earns its place because there is no output schema to carry it. No filler sentences.

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, so the description's explicit return object is genuinely compensating and covers the main information need. Parameters are fully documented by the schema, but behavioral edge cases (missing class, optional override absent) remain unspecified.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including that game_mode_class_path takes precedence, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema; the class names it lists correspond to return values, not inputs.

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 a specific resource (AGameModeBase CDO class slots plus the world settings DefaultGameMode override), and enumerates the exact fields involved. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like get_world_settings or set_game_mode_override.

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 description never states when to invoke this versus alternatives such as get_world_settings, get_default_game_map, or reset_game_mode_override, and gives no prerequisites or conditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the read semantics.

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