get_skeletal_mesh_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by spelling out the return payload shape, which compensates for the absent output schema and tells the agent exactly what data comes back.

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 core purpose in one clause, followed immediately by the return shape. The multi-field return block is verbose but earns its place because there is no output schema; nothing is padded.

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-only inspection tool, the description pairs well with the annotations and fully substitutes for the missing output schema by enumerating every returned field. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% for the single parameter (skeletal_mesh_path), and the schema already gives the content-path format and example. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Get detailed info about a skeletal mesh') and enumerates the exact sub-domains covered (LODs, materials, morph targets, sockets, bones). This cleanly separates it from static-mesh peers like get_static_mesh_info, but it does not name the granular siblings it overlaps with (get_skeletal_mesh_lod_info, get_skeletal_mesh_material_slots, get_skeletal_mesh_morph_targets), so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No indication of when to reach for this aggregate getter versus the many specific siblings (get_skeletal_mesh_lod_info, get_skeletal_mesh_section_info, get_skeletal_mesh_morph_targets), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the title.

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