get_mesh_uv_channel_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the concrete return shape ({ static_mesh_path, lod_index, uv_channel_count }), which matters because no output schema exists, plus the underlying UGeometryScript entry point. It does not say what happens with an invalid path or out-of-range lod_index, so it is not fully transparent.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action and result, and the Returns block is compact. The fully-qualified UGeometryScriptLibrary function signature is arguably noise for an agent choosing a tool, which keeps it out of the top band, but there is no padding 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?

For a read-only two-parameter query whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly, including the return fields that would otherwise be unknown with no output schema. Only edge-case behavior (missing asset, invalid LOD) is unaddressed.

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 schema already documents both static_mesh_path and lod_index including the default of 0. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information 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 and resource: read the number of UV channels in a static mesh. The static-mesh scoping and the countable result distinguish it from the mutating sibling set_num_uv_channels and from detail-oriented siblings like list_uv_channels or get_uv_health_report. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_uv_channels when the agent needs channel details rather than just a count. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name and verb.

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