get_modulation_generator_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by spelling out class-specific settings content per generator type. It does not cover error behavior on an invalid path, keeping it from a 5.

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 action and return breakdown efficiently, but the return structure is stated twice ('Returns generator_path, generator_class and settings by class...' then 'Returns: { ... }'), a mild redundancy that costs a perfect score.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully documents the return shape and per-class settings, which is the main informational need. Only edge cases (missing asset, unsupported class) are left 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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single parameter ('Asset path to the USoundModulationGenerator'), the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates generator_path in the return shape and adds no parsing/format guidance, 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 ('Reads a USoundModulationGenerator asset') and clarifies scope with 'without changing it', implicitly contrasting with write siblings like set_modulation_generator_settings. No sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5, but the read scope is unambiguous.

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 only implied: the read-only phrasing signals this is for inspection rather than editing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternatives named (e.g., get_modulation_parameter_info, get_sound_modulation_patch_info), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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