get_gc_hierarchy_info

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world read. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it generates the Level attribute in memory when needed but explicitly does not save it, which tells the agent this call has an internal side effect without persistence. It also documents the return shape, though it does not discuss performance or failure modes.

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 verb and resource, then the returned fields, the in-memory generation caveat, the sibling routing, and finally the return structure. Each sentence carries distinct information 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?

With no output schema present, the description fully documents the return object (fields and types), the in-memory non-persisted Level generation, and the relevant alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents geometry_collection_path as the asset path. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full-coverage single-param tools.

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 (reads the bone hierarchy of a UGeometryCollection asset) and enumerates exactly what is returned (transform_count, root_indices, per-bone level/name/simulation type, proximity_computed). It explicitly routes the agent to the sibling list_geometry_collection_bones for parent indices, so it is distinguishable 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?

Names an alternative explicitly ('For parent indices use list_geometry_collection_bones'), giving clear when-to-use context for related information. However, it does not state when NOT to use this tool or prerequisites beyond that single routing cue, so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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