unreal_validate

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 'Bounded diagnostic inspection only'. It adds useful behavioral context about the tool's limited scope: inspection focuses on scan_incomplete and per-check evidence rather than full project certification. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second adds essential boundaries in one efficient phrase. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

The overall purpose and safety profile are clear, and the output schema exists, but the two input parameters, especially 'query', are not explained at all. An agent cannot fully know how to invoke the tool correctly (what to pass as a query or what the limit constrains). This is a meaningful completeness gap for a tool that otherwise has good safety and scope disclosure.

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 must compensate, but it does not explain either parameter. 'limit' and 'query' remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The mention of mesh/material/collision/scale warnings hints at what might be queried, but this is not connected to the actual query parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Check loaded editor actors') and lists concrete inspection domains (mesh, material, collision, scale warnings). It also explicitly says it does not compile Blueprints, run gameplay, or certify the project, which helps distinguish it from compile/certification tools, though it does not clearly differentiate from the similarly named 'unreal_verify' sibling.

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 gives clear context: this is a bounded diagnostic inspection of loaded editor actors. It also provides exclusions ('does not compile Blueprints, run gameplay, or certify the complete project'), which prevents misuse. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or give explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use criteria beyond those exclusions.

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