get_modulation_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: that current_value is the live modulator value and that the engine returns 1.0 for an inactive bus, plus what subsystem_active means. This is real insight beyond the structured fields.

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?

The first sentence is well front-loaded, but the trailing 'Returns: { ... }' sentence restates the identical return list already enumerated in the first sentence, with no added information. That duplication is pure waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does, including the important 'engine returns 1.0 for inactive bus' caveat. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents bus_path fully. The description repeats the concept ('bus_path, default_value...') but adds no format, syntax, or resolution detail beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Reads a USoundControlBus asset and its live value in the editor world.' This clearly separates it from sibling readers like get_modulation_parameter_info or get_modulation_generator_info by naming the exact asset type, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from those siblings.

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?

The description states 'without changing anything' but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_modulation_parameter_info or get_sound_modulation_patch_info.

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