get_gameplay_cue_notify_info

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds the meaningful detail that this reads the class default object (not a runtime instance) and lists the concrete fields returned. It does not mention anything about missing/invalid paths or whether the call fails or returns empty on a bad asset.

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?

One front-loaded sentence defines the purpose, followed by the return shape. The return enumeration is long but earns its place given the absence of an output schema, and there is no filler text.

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 inline return-field list is exactly the information an agent needs to consume the result, and annotations plus full param coverage handle the rest. The only gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to the sibling create/set cue-notify tools.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that cue_notify_path is a full asset path and which notify variants are acceptable. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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 (GameplayCueNotify Blueprint CDO), and enumerates the categories of data returned (variant, tag, Actor/Looping lifetime props). This clearly separates it from the sibling creators (create_gameplay_cue_notify_*) and setters (set_gameplay_cue_notify_*_properties), though it never names them explicitly.

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 implies a read/inspection use case via 'Read ... CDO', but gives no guidance on when to call it versus the sibling setters or how to obtain a valid cue_notify_path. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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