get_geometry_collection_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it reinforces the no-mutation guarantee, enumerates the damage-model values including the "Unknown" fallback, and states edge-case behavior ("0 without collection data") – useful disclosure a caller could not infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose and routing come first in a tight opening sentence; the Returns block is verbose but earns its length as the only return-value documentation. No redundant filler beyond a minor restatement of the read-only hint.

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 and one parameter, the description carries the full return-value burden and does so completely, listing every field and its type plus the empty-collection edge case. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its full asset-path format with an example, so the description cannot add much. Baseline 3 for a well-documented single-param schema.

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 ("Reads") plus the exact resource ("UGeometryCollection asset") and enumerates the reported facets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_gc_hierarchy_info, so an agent can route without opening either 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 the alternative (get_gc_hierarchy_info) and the condition that selects it (bone tree). Clear usage context, but no guidance on when not to use this tool or on prerequisites such as whether the asset must be loaded.

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