get_landscape_nanite_status

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the built/out-of-date flags can internally contradict each other and can lag during an in-progress build, so only nanite_enabled should be trusted. This kind of caveat is exactly what annotations cannot express.

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-loads the purpose and the critical caveat before the return shape, and every sentence carries real information. The only mild redundancy is restating the read-only nature that annotations already declare, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 defined, spelling out the returned object (landscape_actor_name, nanite_enabled, nanite_built, nanite_up_to_date, nanite_out_of_date, optional note) is necessary and present. Combined with the trust caveat and the log-based alternative, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

One optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that landscape_actor_name defaults to the first found landscape. The description adds nothing further about naming, ambiguity resolution, or failure when no landscape exists, 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 and resource ('Report a landscape's Nanite flags') and enumerates the exact values reported (enabled/built/up-to-date/out-of-date). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_static_mesh_nanite or get_landscape_info, and the 'without triggering a build' clause pins down the non-mutating scope.

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?

Says explicitly this is for reading flags without kicking off a build, and goes further by naming the condition under which the tool is NOT trustworthy and pointing the agent to a concrete alternative (counting 'Built static mesh ...LandscapeNaniteMesh' lines in Saved/Logs/). That is explicit when-to-use and when-to-go-elsewhere guidance.

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