get_skeletal_mesh_section_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return payload shape, which is useful because there is no output schema, but it does not disclose behavior such as error handling for invalid LOD indices or missing assets.

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?

It is two sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second provides the return shape. The return-schema sentence earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 simple read-only getter with annotations covering safety and a fully described input schema, the description is complete enough. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the returned fields and nested section fields.

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 are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; its listed fields correspond to output data, not input parameter semantics.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: get section data for a LOD of a skeletal mesh, with concrete fields. It is clear about scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings such as get_skeletal_mesh_lod_info or get_skeletal_mesh_info.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, preconditions, or scenarios where section info is preferable to LOD-level or mesh-level info.

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