get_render_target_2d_array_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the lower bar applies. The description still adds genuine value with 'Metadata-only, no pixel readback,' clarifying the operation won't pull texture data, plus it discloses the return shape. It stops short of noting performance or size caveats.

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 compact parts: a front-loaded one-line purpose plus scope, then a terse return shape. No filler, and the most important information leads.

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 enumerating the return object fields is exactly the right compensation, and annotations already carry the safety profile. Only the absence of any when-not-to-use framing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 single path parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, though the asset-type context marginally frames the expected path.

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 metadata) and a precise resource (UTextureRenderTarget2DArray asset) and even enumerates the metadata fields (size, slice count, format). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_render_target_info (2D) and get_render_target_cube_info (cube) without needing to inspect 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?

The clause 'Metadata-only, no pixel readback' scopes what the tool will and won't do, which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance and no prerequisites stated. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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