get_volumetric_cloud_properties

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the target component and fully enumerating the return shape, which is especially valuable because no output schema exists. It does not describe error behavior (e.g., missing actor), keeping it from a 5.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by an explicit return shape. The return object is long but necessary because there is no output schema, and every field listed earns its place.

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 read-only getter with full schema description coverage and rich annotations, the description is complete: it identifies the target component, relates itself to the setter, and supplies the return shape that would otherwise be missing. No meaningful context an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 single parameter actor_name is already described in the schema as the target VolumetricCloud actor. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details for that parameter, so baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (read) and resource (properties of a VolumetricCloud actor's UVolumetricCloudComponent), and explicitly names the sibling setter whose parameter names it mirrors. This lets an agent distinguish it from set_volumetric_cloud_properties and the related spawn/mutate tools without opening either 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?

It establishes itself as the read counterpart to set_volumetric_cloud_properties, which implies when an agent would need it, but it gives no explicit when-to-use trigger, prerequisites, or exclusions. The relationship is contextual rather than a routing instruction, so usage is only implied.

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