is_skeleton_shared

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the lookup is an Asset Registry query, and 'only the skeleton itself is loaded' — relevant load-cost information an agent would not get from annotations.

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 operation, then the mechanism, then output semantics; no filler sentences. Minor redundancy because the fields are listed in prose and then repeated verbatim in the 'Returns' line.

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 burden of describing the return shape, and it does list all four fields plus the meaning of 'shared'. It stops short of giving types for mesh_count/asset_path, but the shape is sufficient to call and interpret the tool.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with a concrete path example ("/Game/Characters/SK_Hero_Skeleton"). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 precise verb (Find), a precise resource (skeletal mesh assets bound to a USkeleton), and the mechanism (Asset Registry query on the Skeleton tag). It also names the derived output concept 'shared', making it clearly distinct from sibling readers like get_skeleton_info or get_skeletal_mesh_info.

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 intent (determine whether more than one mesh uses a skeleton) is implied by the 'shared' flag, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over adjacent asset-relationship tools such as get_asset_dependents or get_asset_referencers. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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