get_sky_atmosphere_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the exact returned property set, which is meaningful behavioral context the annotations do not provide. It stops short of noting actor-not-found handling or whether it runs on the editor world vs PIE.

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 purpose sentence, followed by a compact structured Returns block. Both earn their place; the return enumeration is dense but readable and non-redundant.

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 description compensates by spelling out the return shape and property names, which is exactly what an agent needs. The only minor gap is failure/edge behavior, but for a simple read tool this is largely 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 coverage is 100% for the single actor_name parameter and the schema already describes it as the target SkyAtmosphere actor's label. The description adds no further meaning (e.g., how to resolve the name) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') and resource ('atmosphere properties of a SkyAtmosphere actor's USkyAtmosphereComponent'), and explicitly ties itself to the counterpart setter by noting the returned names match set_sky_atmosphere_properties. An agent can distinguish it from the set_* sibling 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 mention that the field names are the ones 'set_sky_atmosphere_properties takes' implies the read/write pairing, which is a useful usage cue. However, it never states when to prefer this over other sky/inspection tools or any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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