get_sound_wave_properties

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 fully covered. The description adds the useful clarification that it reads the object's own UPROPERTY tunables and describes the returned fields, but gives no detail on permissions, failure modes, or how 'settings' is populated. Modest value beyond 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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the return shape is separated cleanly. Efficient, though the parenthetical could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the return shape (sound_wave_path, asset_class, settings, looping). For a single-parameter read tool with complete schema and full annotations, this is nearly complete, missing only a note on what 'settings' contains.

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_wave_path) is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (Read) plus the exact resource and scope: 'USoundWave tunables (the object's own UPROPERTY fields) from an imported sound wave.' This clearly differentiates the read of a sound wave's own fields from the many audio siblings (get_sound_class_properties, get_sound_attenuation_properties). It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'from an imported sound wave' implies a prerequisite input but gives no explicit when-to-use context or routing against siblings. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_sound_class_properties or that set_sound_wave_properties is the mutating counterpart. This is essentially no guidance.

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