list_warp_targets_on_component

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. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it names the wrapped API and GetWarpTargets() return type, and enumerates the fields each entry reports, which matters because no output schema exists.

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-loads the purpose in the first sentence and then details the return fields and shape in a compact way. The field enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema to convey the payload structure.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by listing the entry fields and giving the return object shape. Combined with the annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the lack of sibling differentiation is a minor gap.

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_path) is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'an actor's UMotionWarpingComponent' but adds no format or syntax detail (e.g., full path vs short name) beyond what the schema already 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 (list) and resource (FMotionWarpingTarget on an actor's UMotionWarpingComponent), and names the underlying API GetWarpTargets(). It is clear what the tool fetches, though it never distinguishes itself from the neighboring inspect_motion_warping_component, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as inspect_motion_warping_component or the set/remove warp-target tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'; no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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