get_post_process_volume_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the invariant that there is 'one code path per FPostProcessSettings field,' which is useful context, but it omits anything about permissions, failure modes, or performance. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with the verb+resource, then the sibling-scope carve-out, then an explicit Returns list. Dense but every sentence carries non-redundant information; the parenthetical asides are slightly heavy but justified.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the exact return keys (volume_name, enabled, unbounded, priority, white_temp, auto_exposure_method, film_grain_intensity, motion_blur_amount, color_grading_lut_path). Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though nothing covers error cases.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents volume_name ('Label of the APostProcessVolume in the editor world'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 (Read) and precise resource (the FPostProcessSettings struct of an APostProcessVolume), which an agent can distinguish from siblings without opening the schema. It further delineates exactly which fields this tool covers versus the get_post_process_settings/set_post_process_setting pair.

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?

Names the alternative tools (get_post_process_settings/set_post_process_setting) and the condition under which those should be used instead (bloom_intensity/ambient_occlusion_intensity/vignette_intensity). Clear context, though the division-of-labor is dense and there is no plain when-to-use summary at the top.

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