get_texture_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral detail: it discloses the accepted path formats (short vs fully-qualified) and enumerates the returned fields, substituting for the absent 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the parameter note and the return contract. The return-field enumeration is long but earns its place because no output schema exists; overall the text is tight with no filler.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, accepted path forms, and the full return shape inline, compensating for the missing output schema. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so nothing essential is left for the agent to guess.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema baseline of 3 applies. The description's note about short vs fully-qualified paths largely restates what the schema property already documents, adding little new syntax or format meaning.

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") and resource ("metadata for a UTexture2D asset"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_texture_array_info or get_static_mesh_info. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource specificity makes the intent unambiguous.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus another metadata reader, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement, so the agent gets no routing guidance.

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