unreal_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that ('Inspect'). It adds useful context by specifying that this reports live editor state rather than a preview or plan, and enumerates the data areas covered. It does not cover failure modes, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, and the key term 'Inspect' is front-loaded. Very efficient.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with a provided output schema, this description is complete enough: it states what data will be inspected and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The only real gap is alternative routing, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names a concrete resource set: engine version, project file, session, and world revision. This clearly identifies the tool's role, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as unreal_context or jev_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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this over the many sibling inspection tools, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The word 'actual' implies current-state inspection, but that implication is not developed into usable selection criteria.

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