get_sound_class_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns only one level at a time, parent is 'None' for a root, and it can be re-invoked on a parent or child to continue walking. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are not central for this read operation.

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?

The description is front-loaded and compact: the first sentence states the operation and scope, the second explains iterative usage, and a separate Returns paragraph documents the shape. The word 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations and slightly weakens conciseness, but the rest of the text is efficient.

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 steps up by documenting the return object fields (name, sound_class_path, parent, parent_path, children, child_count). It also covers root behavior and iterative traversal. The only gap is a small ambiguity about how child names relate to the sound_class_path parameter, but for a simple one-parameter read tool the description is otherwise 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (sound_class_path) is already well documented with an example in the schema. The description adds no further format or syntax detail for the parameter. It does mention calling the tool on a parent or child, but does not clarify whether child names can be passed directly as paths, leaving some ambiguity. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Read one level of the hierarchy of a USoundClass asset.' It immediately scopes what is returned (parent, parent_path, direct children, child_count), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sound_class_properties that expose a different aspect of the same asset.

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 concrete usage guidance: 'Call it again on a parent or child to walk further.' This tells the agent how to traverse the hierarchy iteratively. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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