get_string_table_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned payload, including the nested per-entry shape (key, source, metadata as id-to-value with metadata_count), which is the key behavioral detail for a read tool lacking an output schema.

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 action and read-only qualifier, then the entry structure and alternative. The trailing 'Returns' block partially restates the field list already given in the narrative, a minor redundancy, but overall efficient.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates fully by describing the return object and the shape of nested entries. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret the call 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents string_table_path as the full asset path. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lists every entry of a UStringTable asset') and immediately distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling by naming set_string_table_entry as the edit path. An agent can identify this tool's job without inspecting the schema.

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?

Clearly positions the tool as read-only ('without changing it') and routes edits to set_string_table_entry, giving an explicit alternative for the write case. It does not, however, address when to prefer it over the closely related get_string_table_metadata sibling.

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