get_sound_attenuation_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 the 'Read-only' statement is largely redundant. Useful additions include the disclosure that all fields are returned as a single settings object plus asset_class, and the explicit return shape, but no error or invalid-path behavior is described.

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 action and scope, followed by the sibling-key note and the return shape. Efficient, though 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation and could be trimmed.

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 one fully documented parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, the only remaining question is the return value, which the description supplies via an explicit shape (attenuation_path, asset_class, settings) despite there being no output schema. Complete for a straightforward read tool, minus failure-mode detail.

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% and the single attenuation_path parameter is documented in the schema as the full content path to a USoundAttenuation. The description reinforces the target asset type but adds no syntax or format detail 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 (every FSoundAttenuationSettings field of a USoundAttenuation asset), and enumerates the covered groups (shape, falloff, spatialization, LPF, occlusion, reverb send). It also names the sibling set_sound_attenuation_properties and explains the key correspondence, so an agent can distinguish read from write.

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 pairing with set_sound_attenuation_properties implies usage (read here, write there), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance versus other read siblings like get_sound_class_properties. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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