get_streaming_levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine context: it names the underlying source (UWorld::GetStreamingLevels()) and discloses the zero-levels edge case returning an empty array. No contradiction with openWorldHint=false since it is scoped to the editor world.

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 purpose in sentence one, followed by the edge case and the return shape. The returns block is verbose, but it earns its place because no output schema exists to carry that information.

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 parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the full return structure (streaming_levels fields plus count and world_package) and the empty-result behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies per the zero-parameter rule.

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?

The description gives a precise verb and resource ("Lists every streaming sub-level") scoped to "the current editor world," which cleanly separates it from write siblings like add_streaming_level, remove_streaming_level, and set_streaming_level_loaded/visible. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4 rather than 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The read-only listing intent is inferable from the verb and from the surrounding get/set/add/remove streaming-level siblings, which is minimal viable context but nothing more.

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