get_sky_light_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond the annotations by spelling out the returned property set and the naming contract shared with the setter, which structured fields do not convey.

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 compact parts: the purpose sentence first, then the return shape. No filler, and the most important information (what it reads and its relationship to the setter) is front-loaded.

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 exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the full returned structure. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented single param, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 one input parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Label/name of the target SkyLight actor'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra syntax or constraints for actor_name, matching the baseline for fully documented params.

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 ('Read the properties of a SkyLight actor's USkyLightComponent') and explicitly names the write counterpart set_sky_light_properties, letting an agent separate this from get_light_properties or get_sky_atmosphere_properties without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by the pairing with set_sky_light_properties ('under the names set_sky_light_properties takes'), so the read-before-write workflow is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or when-not guidance.

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