get_texture_array_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 structurally. The description adds the return shape, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g. missing/invalid array path) or read cost, so with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the return contract. No filler; every clause conveys usable 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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the exact return fields, which an agent needs to consume the result. The only omission is error/edge-case behavior for invalid paths, but for a simple read-only metadata tool this is close to complete.

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 is fully documented in the schema itself, including both path forms. The description's sentence about short vs fully-qualified paths largely restates the schema example, adding marginal value beyond it. 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 (Reads metadata) and resource (UTexture2DArray asset), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_texture_info and get_render_target_2d_array_info. An agent knows exactly what asset type and operation this covers.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the accepted path formats, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_texture_info, and no prerequisite/system-state conditions stated. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer selection.

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