get_media_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by explaining that returned fields vary by media type (player fields vs texture fields vs file path), which is beyond what the annotations convey. It does not cover error behavior for invalid paths.

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 tight sentences with the scope front-loaded, plus a compact Returns line. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it lists the exact return fields (asset_path, class, media_type, play_on_open, loop, has_media_player, media_player_path, auto_clear, file_path) and explains the type-dependent variation.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, and the description adds value by naming the media_type enum values (MediaPlayer/MediaTexture/FileMediaSource/Other) and describing how the linked player/file_path fields relate to the asset type. This clarifies the single asset_path parameter's acceptable targets beyond the schema text.

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+resource (read a media asset by path) and enumerates the relevant media_type values, making the tool's scope immediately clear. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_texture_info or get_skeletal_mesh_info because it is explicitly about media assets (player/texture/file source).

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 getter name and the 'Read ... by path' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as create_media_player or link_media_texture_to_player. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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