get_physics_asset_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. The description adds the concrete payload contents (body count, constraint count, bound mesh), but 'Returns: success or error payload' is boilerplate and says nothing about failure modes or edge cases. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the concrete payload before the generic return note. The trailing 'success or error payload' is near-zero information but costs little.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names the three data points returned, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. It falls short only in not describing the error condition or whether the counts can be zero/absent.

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% with a single, fully documented physics_asset_path parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or path-syntax detail beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (Read) and resource (UPhysicsAsset) and enumerates exactly what it exposes: body count, constraint count, and bound skeletal mesh. This is enough to separate it from near-neighbors like get_physics_constraint_info or get_skeletal_mesh_info, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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, and no alternatives are mentioned despite a very dense sibling set (get_physics_settings, get_physics_constraint_info, get_actor_bounds). The agent must infer that this is an inspection-only call.

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