get_hlod_layer_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the set of returned fields, but does not disclose any behavior beyond that, such as error handling for a missing path.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return shape. Every element is relevant, though the inline return-type listing is slightly dense.

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 description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only edge-case behavior left unspecified.

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% with a single required parameter, and the schema already documents 'Full /Game path to the HLOD layer asset'. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') and resource ('layer type and streaming-grid settings of a UHLODLayer'), which is clearly a single-asset inspection tool. It distinguishes from the plural list tool get_hlod_layers by implication of the singular 'a UHLODLayer', though it does not name siblings 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?

Usage is implied by the 'get' verb and the read-only nature, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_hlod_layers or get_hlod_layer_actors, nor any stated prerequisite. Minimum viable context only.

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