get_static_mesh_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope note that results span all LODs, but says nothing about cost, allowed callers, or pagination. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a modest but adequate contribution.

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 compact sentences: the purpose and scope lead, then the return shape. No filler, no redundancy, and the scoping phrase 'all LODs' is front-loaded where an agent will see it first.

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, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (lod_index, section_index, cast_shadow, collision_enabled, visible_in_ray_tracing, sections, total_sections). Combined with annotations that cover the read-only nature, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the choice among sibling mesh-introspection tools remains unaddressed.

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 (static_mesh_path) is fully documented in the schema as a UStaticMesh content path. The description adds no format or path-syntax detail beyond what the schema already 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 and resource ('Get section-level info for all LODs of a static mesh') and enumerates the flags returned (shadow, collision, ray tracing), so an agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as get_static_mesh_info or get_skeletal_mesh_section_info, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_static_mesh_info, get_static_mesh_sockets, or the skeletal-mesh section equivalent. The description only implies usage through its resource name; no prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives are given.

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