unreal_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Reads the editor world.' It adds valuable caveats: PIE is supported and 'the revision tracks actor state; it does not fingerprint all asset contents,' preventing a common misunderstanding. The 'truncation flags' remark is somewhat cryptic but still contributes behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The three sentences are mostly economical, though the phrase 'Inspect independent truncation flags' is vague and does not clearly earn its place. Overall, it avoids bloat and keeps the most important information at the top.

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?

With an output schema present, the response shape is covered elsewhere, and the read-only annotations cover safety. But the description still leaves notable gaps: it never explains what 'bounded actors' means, what 'query' filters, or how 'limit' applies. It is minimally viable for a default call but incomplete for intentional parameter use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'limit' or 'query' at all, leaving their purpose, scope, and filtering behavior undocumented. The names are mildly suggestive, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and resource list: 'Get project/world, play state, selection, dirty packages and bounded actors together.' This clearly identifies the tool as an aggregate context reader and distinguishes it from single-purpose sibling tools like unreal_actor_details or unreal_status. The scope is concrete and actionable.

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 usage context by saying it 'Reads the editor world, including while PIE is running,' which signals when the tool is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives or conditions for choosing another sibling tool. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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