get_physics_constraint_info

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits. The description adds substantial context beyond that: it explains exactly which configuration aspects are returned, that the result is a serialized template rather than runtime simulation state, and that certain values are zero outside PIE. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, then a useful distinction from siblings, then a detailed Returns list. The Returns list is long but earns its place because no output schema exists; however, it is dense enough that it slightly exceeds what is usually ideal for a description.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a complete field-level return structure. Combined with the annotations and input schema, an agent has everything needed to call the tool and interpret the result correctly, including the important caveat about zeroed runtime values outside PIE.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter ('constraint_actor_name' labeled as 'Label/name of the APhysicsConstraintActor'). The description does not add further meaning, syntax, or lookup guidance for that parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a precise verb ('Read') and resource ('full authored configuration of a world APhysicsConstraintActor's UPhysicsConstraintComponent'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the write-oriented siblings spawn_physics_constraint, set_constraint_limits, and set_physics_constraint_drives. An agent can identify its exact scope without opening the 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?

It names the alternative mutation tools and states its use case as their read-only complement. It also sets a clear when-not boundary by explaining that it returns the serialized authored template rather than live simulation state (motor torque/broken/force values are zero outside PIE).

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