ue_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes the tool as a connection check returning status data, implying read-only and non-destructive behavior. It could be more explicit about expected behavior on failure, but overall it's transparent about what the tool does.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The action verb ('Verifica') is first, and every sentence adds critical information (what it checks, what it returns, when to use it).

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 status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the returned fields, and provides a usage directive. No further detail is needed given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters but adds value by listing the returned fields, which compensates for the lack of an output 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 checks the Unreal editor connection and returns specific status info (engine version, open project, current level, actor count, transport). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are more specialized actions.

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 explicitly says 'Da usare per prima' (use first), providing a clear usage guideline to run this before other tools. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the instruction is sufficient for this simple tool.

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