ue_landscape_info

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

The description discloses the types of information returned (components, material, paint/edit layers), giving some insight into the tool's output. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or what happens if the label is invalid or no landscape exists. The 'info' name implies read-only, but the description does not confirm it.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a practical usage tip. There is no redundant information, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 info tool with one optional parameter, the description lists the key return categories but does not specify the structure of the response (no output schema exists). It also lacks error handling behavior or preconditions. While adequate for basic use, it leaves gaps for edge cases and return format clarity.

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 only defines label as an optional string/null without explanation. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that label can be omitted when there is only one landscape in the level. This goes beyond the schema's default null and helps the agent decide when to pass the parameter, though it does not clarify the label format or how to obtain it.

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 tool as retrieving landscape information (components, material, paint target layer, edit layer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_landscape_list or ue_landscape_import_heightmap, which handle listing/importing. The resource (landscape) and the specific info fields are named, making the purpose understandable.

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 a useful usage note: 'Con un solo landscape nel livello label si può omettere' indicates when the label parameter can be omitted. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The context is implied by the tool type but not directly stated.

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