get_static_mesh_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 fully covered without the description's help. The description adds the data surface the call produces but says nothing about behavior beyond the read (e.g., whether the asset must be loaded, cost on large meshes, or failure mode for a missing path).

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 single sentence stating purpose and the information categories, followed by a compact return-shape listing. Every element earns its place, though the return blob is long enough that it could be trimmed for a schema-only audience.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, naming each returned field (lods, materials array with slot_index/slot_name/material_path, collision_complexity, nanite_enabled, bounds, sphere_radius). Input is documented in the schema and safety in annotations, so the main thing an agent still lacks is guidance on choosing this over overlapping mesh-introspection siblings.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Content path to the UStaticMesh asset'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or resolution guidance beyond what the schema already states, which matches the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Get detailed info') plus resource ('a static mesh') with an enumerated field list (LODs, verts, materials/slots, sockets, nanite, collision, bounds) that makes the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with close siblings such as get_static_mesh_sockets, get_static_mesh_sections, or get_dynamic_mesh_info, so an agent still has to infer which of these to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated information categories signal 'use this when you need a broad summary of a mesh,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to the narrower sibling tools that return overlapping data like socket or section details.

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