get_sound_source_bus

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain behavior beyond the annotations: duration=0 means 'plays indefinitely' and audio_bus_path is 'empty when none'. This is meaningful semantic context the agent would not otherwise have.

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 core purpose, field list, read-only signal, and writer pointer in efficient sentences. The Returns block is slightly redundant given the prose already enumerates fields, but it is compact and useful absent an output schema.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the return shape (ssb_path, asset_class, source_bus_channels, duration, audio_bus_path, audio_bus_class) plus edge-case semantics. Nothing needed to call it 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?

Only one parameter (ssb_path) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully with an example path. The description adds no additional parameter guidance. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (routing fields of a USoundSourceBus asset) and enumerates the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from the write siblings (create_sound_source_bus, set_sound_source_bus_audio_bus) by naming the writer counterpart, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Explicitly declares read-only and points to the alternative tool (set_sound_source_bus_audio_bus) for writing. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the read/write split is unambiguous.

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