get_rvt_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered by structured data. The description still adds value by enumerating exactly which fields come back and by flagging that the units are raw texels/tiles rather than the exponents used elsewhere, which is the kind of cross-tool trap annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the two sentences are tight. The only waste is that the field list in sentence one is then restated almost verbatim in the 'Returns:' line, a small redundancy that costs a little density.

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 is provided, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does so explicitly with the field set and unit conventions. Combined with the sibling cross-reference, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

There is only one input parameter (asset_path) and the schema documents it at 100% with an example path, so the schema carries the load. The description's clarifications about material_type, tile_size and size refer to returned values rather than to asset_path, so it adds little to the input semantics themselves. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a URuntimeVirtualTexture asset') and immediately bounds the scope with 'without changing it'. It also names the sibling create_rvt_asset as the contrasting operation, so an agent can separate this info tool from the creation tool without opening either 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 read-only framing plus the explicit contrast with create_rvt_asset ('the exponents create_rvt_asset takes') tells the agent which of the two RVT tools to pick. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites or when-not-to-use (e.g. before delete/assign), so it stops just short of a full 5.

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