get_skeletal_mesh_lod_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return shape (lod_index, screen_size, num_material_map_entries, allow_cpu_access, build_settings), which is useful because no output schema exists, but says nothing about missing-LOD behavior, errors, or defaults beyond the schema's 'default 0'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields. Efficient and free of filler, though the braces notation is a touch raw.

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 inline return-shape listing is exactly the compensation needed, and parameters are covered by the schema. For a simple read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete; only edge-case behavior is unstated.

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%, so both parameters (skeletal_mesh_path, lod_index with its default) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies that a LOD index is queried and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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+resource: retrieve per-LOD build settings and screen size for a skeletal mesh. An agent can distinguish it from the many set_skeletal_mesh_lod_* and add/remove_skeletal_mesh_lod siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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 is a getter, so usage is somewhat implied, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus the sibling LOD readers (e.g., get_skeletal_mesh_info, get_asset_lod_settings) or any prerequisites such as requiring an existing LOD index. No when/when-not guidance is given.

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