get_sound_concurrency_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by enumerating the exact fields returned and giving the return shape. It restates 'Read-only' redundantly, but the field-level and return-object detail is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the field set, followed by a return-shape line. The field enumeration is slightly long but earns its place since there is no output schema. No filler.

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, but the description compensates with an explicit return object shape, and annotations cover the safety profile. Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid path handling), which keeps it just short of 5.

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?

Only one parameter, concurrency_path, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the path format beyond what the schema states, so 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?

Specific verb+resource: reads every FSoundConcurrencySettings field of a USoundConcurrency asset, and enumerates the concrete fields (maxCount, bLimitToOwner, resolutionRule, retriggerTime, volume scaling, voice stealing). It explicitly names the sibling set_sound_concurrency_properties as the write counterpart, so the read/write split is unmistakable.

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 states this is the read side and that the returned keys match set_sound_concurrency_properties, which effectively routes the agent to the setter when mutation is intended. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' exclusion, but the read/write pairing gives clear context.

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