get_static_mesh_sockets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by spelling out the return shape (static_mesh_path, socket_count, sockets[] with location/rotation/scale/tag), which no output schema provides and which the annotations cannot convey.

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 short blocks: the action and scope first, then the exact return structure. No filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. The return payload is slightly dense but every field listed is informative given no output schema exists.

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 compensates by fully describing the return object, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only remaining gap is the absence of any error/failure note (e.g. invalid mesh path), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (static_mesh_path) is fully documented in the schema as a content path to the UStaticMesh asset. The description adds nothing beyond restating that a static mesh is the target, so the 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 ("List all sockets of a static mesh") and scopes the returned fields (transform and tag). It is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like add_static_mesh_socket or set_static_mesh_socket_transform, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus the other static-mesh socket tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that the mesh path must resolve). Usage is only implied by the read-only verb and the sibling set.

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