ue_component_physics_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the tool's purpose without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only-ness, return format, or potential side effects. While the name suggests a simple query, the description does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the main idea ('Stato' indicates a state query). It is appropriately brief for a simple info tool, though it lacks detail (penalized elsewhere).

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?

The tool has annotations, an output schema, or detailed parameters; the description is minimal. It doesn't describe what information is returned, the structure of the result, or any additional context needed to use the tool effectively. Given the lack of output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema has only 'actor' and 'component' with no descriptions. The description does not explain what these parameters should contain (e.g., names, paths, IDs) or how they relate. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 it inspects the current physics/collision state of a component. It clearly identifies the resource (component) and the informational nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ue_set_component_physics. However, it lacks a verb and doesn't specify exactly what fields are returned, so it's clear but not maximal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The only sibling connection is implicit (e.g., before modifying physics with ue_set_component_physics).

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