get_sound_modulation_patch_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that, notably the null output_parameter case and the fact that each input name is always empty. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but for this simple read tool those are less critical.

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 front-loads the purpose, but the second sentence largely repeats the return fields already listed in the first sentence. This redundancy makes the description less concise than it should be. Every sentence should earn its place, and this duplication does not add new information.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does provide field names and nested structure. However, it is internally inconsistent: the first sentence says each input has { bus, name } and that name is always empty, while the 'Returns' line shows inputs as [{ bus: { path } }] with no name field. That inconsistency could confuse an agent about the actual returned shape.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, and the single required parameter patch_path is already documented as 'Asset path to the USoundModulationPatch.' The description does not add any syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema already carries full parameter documentation.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('USoundModulationPatch asset'), making the purpose immediately clear. It also emphasizes that the asset is not changed, which helps distinguish read-oriented use. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from related siblings such as get_modulation_info, get_modulation_generator_info, or create_sound_modulation_patch.

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 no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. It only implies that this is a read operation on a patch asset, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name. With many audio-related siblings existing, the absence of routing guidance is a clear gap.

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