unreal_surface_preview

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, but the description says 'preview' and 'Requires a native mesh actor,' which implies a read-only inspection. The description contradicts annotations indirectly by implying mutating behavior (readOnlyHint false) while the name and language suggest a preview. Beyond that, it does not disclose side effects, output format, or what 'reject' means behaviorally.

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-loads the action, but it includes a confusing sentence 'Does not apply' that adds no clarity. It could be more concise and structure information logically, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context: it doesn't explain what the output contains, how the agent should interpret 'preview' results, when to reject with errors, or how to proceed after preview. The requirement for a 'native mesh actor' is noted but not defined. Siblings like unreal_apply and unreal_preview imply a workflow, but the description does not connect this tool to them beyond a vague reference.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameters. The description mentions 'trace,' 'slopes/overlap,' and 'measured transform,' but does not explain the purpose of 'query,' 'trace_up_cm,' 'surface_paths,' 'align_to_normal,' or 'max_slope_degrees.' The nested object's parameters remain completely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 states the action ('Trace to approved collision surfaces... preview'), the resource (surfaces), and a distinct purpose (filtering and preview) that separates it from the sibling unreal_apply. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against.

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 mentions 'Review the trace and native scene plan, then use unreal_apply' and 'Requires a native mesh actor,' which gives some direction. However, it does not specify when to choose this tool over siblings like unreal_spatial_preview or unreal_mesh_preview, nor does it provide explicit exclusions beyond the vague 'Does not apply.'

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