get_string_table_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields, notably entry_exists, which signals that a missing entry is reported rather than raising an error.

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 sentences plus a return-shape line, front-loaded with the action and scope; little waste. The parenthetical API name (FStringTable::EnumerateMetaData) is marginally useful but adds characters without changing agent behavior.

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 spelling out the return object fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. The only small gap is not stating what happens when entry_exists is false or how large metadata sets are returned.

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%, so both parameters (string_table_path, key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format hints, path conventions, or key-resolution details beyond the schema, 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 (Read) plus the precise resource (all metadata id->value on a UStringTable entry) and even cites the underlying API. It explicitly positions itself relative to the sibling set_string_table_metadata as its reader counterpart, so an agent can distinguish the pair without opening schemas.

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?

The description tells the agent this is the read half of the get/set metadata pair, which implies usage, but it never states when to prefer this over adjacent readers such as get_string_table_entries, nor any prerequisites (e.g. asset must be loaded). Usage is implied rather than specified.

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