ue_project_info

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

The description indicates a read operation ('legge'), implying no side effects. It lists the return values, providing transparency. Without annotations, it carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it adequately conveys that the tool 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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose. No extraneous words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return information. It could mention the requirement that the file must exist, but it's largely complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'uproject'. The description clarifies that the parameter is the path to a .uproject file, adding minimal but helpful context. More detail on expected format or validation would improve this.

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 states the tool reads a .uproject file and lists the specific information returned (engine version, active plugins, bridge status). It uses a specific verb ('legge') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools which deal with editing, presets, or status.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve project metadata, which is clear from context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the lack of similar siblings, it's still fairly clear.

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