get_montage_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real context by fixing the scope of the read ('without changing it') and enumerating the exact inspection surface. No mention of auth/permission prerequisites or failure mode for a bad path, which keeps it off 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-loaded verb and efficient two-sentence structure, with the Returns block standing in for a missing output schema. Slight redundancy: the first sentence lists fields (skeleton_path, counts, blend_in/blend_out) that the Returns block then repeats, so it is dense rather than perfectly economical.

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?

Single required param fully covered by the schema, safety covered by annotations, and the absent output schema is compensated by an inline Returns enumeration. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%: montage_path is documented in-schema with an example path format ('/Game/MyGame/AM_Example'). The description adds nothing about the path argument, so the baseline 3 applies – the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Read) + resource (UAnimMontage) with an explicit enumeration of exactly what is returned: skeleton_path, section/slot/notify counts, blend times, blend modes, sync_group, sync_slot_index. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling setters by naming them, so an agent can separate it from set_montage_blend_times/set_montage_properties without opening any schema.

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?

Clear read-vs-write routing: 'Read ... without changing it' followed by 'Change them with set_montage_blend_times or set_montage_properties.' That names the alternatives and the condition that selects them. It stops short of a full when/when-not treatment (e.g. when to prefer get_anim_asset_info or get_anim_notifies instead), so not a 5.

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