ue_ge_info

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

The description lists the exact data fields returned, which goes beyond a generic 'get info' statement. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential errors, or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity about side effects or required permissions.

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, compact sentence that efficiently lists all relevant return fields. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse. No fluff or redundancy.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description lists the return fields, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the parameter's purpose or any edge cases. For a read/info tool, this is adequate but not complete; the agent may need to infer path conventions.

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 single parameter 'ge_path' is not described in the schema or description. Although the name is self-explanatory, the description does not add any additional context about path format, supported asset types, or required precisions. With 0% schema coverage, more compensation was expected.

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 clearly identifies the resource (existing GameplayEffect) and the specific information returned (Duration policy, period, modifiers, components). It is distinct from sibling tools like ue_create_gameplay_effect or ue_ge_add_modifier, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve'.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description (inspect a GameplayEffect), but it does not explicitly state when to use against alternatives or mention exclusions. The distinction from creation/modification tools is clear from sibling names, but no direct guidance is provided.

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