ue_skeleton_info

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail wasser: 'dalla reference pose' (from the reference pose), which clarifies that results come from the base pose rather than the current animation pose. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether the asset is loaded/modified, but as a read-only listing tool this is a moderate omission.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a single well-formed param block. Every element is necessary and no words are wasted. The structure is clean and immediately scannable.

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?

Given its simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameter adequately. However, it does not describe the output structure (e.g., does it return separate lists, a map, etc.) nor any potential failure modes. While not a complex tool, these gaps leave minor ambiguity for an agent invoking it.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only provides a title. The description's 'Args' section clarifies the parameter 'skeleton_path' with a concrete example path ('/Game/MyGame/Characters/Hero/Hero_Skeleton'), explicitly indicating the expected format is a game content path. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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's function: 'Elenca ossa e socket di uno Skeleton, dalla reference pose' (Lists bones and sockets of a Skeleton, from the reference pose). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling info tools like ue_anim_sequence_info or ue_pcg_graph_info, which target other asset types.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to inspect a skeleton's bones/sockets) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on how this differs from other 'info' tools in the same family, though the resource focus makes the usage context reasonably clear.

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