get_gameplay_effect_modifiers

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is low; the description still adds two useful disclosures an agent cannot get from structured fields: magnitude_type is always reported as ScalableFloat regardless of the real type, and magnitude_value_at_level_1 only exists when the modifier is static.

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 purpose and caveats before the field list; the field enumeration is somewhat dense but justified since no output schema exists. Minimal waste, though the two-sentence return list could be tightened.

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?

No output schema is published, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields; safety behavior is covered by annotations and correctness caveats are explicitly stated. Missing only routing guidance to sibling read 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 (effect_path) with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents both accepted asset forms, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 precise resource (attribute modifiers of a GameplayEffect asset), and enumerates the exact fields returned, which separates it from get_gameplay_effect_info. It never names a sibling alternative, so it stops short of the top band.

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 accepted input forms (native asset vs Blueprint GE class default object) are given, which implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as get_gameplay_effect_info or the set_gameplay_effect_modifier_* family.

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