get_gameplay_effect_components

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it clarifies the read comes from the CDO (class default object, not a live instance), that values are round-tripped as configured, and which component attributes are included. It does not discuss error behavior or pagination, but adds real value over the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return shape. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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-only getter with annotations covering safety and a schema that documents the path argument, the description provides sufficient context, including the return shape in lieu of an output schema. Minor gaps remain around invalid-path behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter (gameplay_effect_path) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 narrowly scoped resource ('the GEComponents array from a GameplayEffect CDO'), then enumerates the fields it round-trips (granted/asset/blocked tags, chance-to-apply, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from broader siblings like get_gameplay_effect_info or get_gameplay_effect_modifiers, though it does not name an alternative 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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit 'to read components'. No when-not guidance is provided, and no sibling is referenced despite many closely related ability-system getters.

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