get_struct_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description still adds real context: the return shape, that both native and Blueprint-authored structs are handled, and how the result is meant to be consumed downstream. This is useful but not a deep behavioral disclosure beyond what is structured.

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 resource, followed by usage guidance and a Returns block. Every sentence is load-bearing and there is no filler; the alternative-tool note is compactly stated.

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 carries the return contract itself and does so with an explicit shape. Combined with the stated usage triggers and sibling disambiguation, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents that struct_name is a bare name resolved via FindFirstObject and that an asset path is not accepted, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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) and resource (UScriptStruct definition) with explicit scope: path plus every member property as a typed descriptor, and covers both native and Blueprint-authored structs. It names the two nearest siblings it is not (get_struct_members, get_enum_info), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('learn the FIELD NAMES before passing a struct as a JSON object to call_function / set_property_value, or to read the row layout behind a DataTable') and names the alternative view (get_struct_members) plus the enum analogue. Both the trigger and the contrast case are given.

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