unreal_workflow_inspect

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already assure the agent of safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Explicit bounded fields; never arbitrary execution or loading' and 'Results declare evidence limits', which clarifies the tool's constraints and output nature. This goes beyond the annotations, enhancing the agent's understanding of what the tool will and won't do.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the most important information (what it inspects). The second sentence adds constraints and output behavior. It is efficient, no fluff, and earns its place.

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?

There is an output schema present, so the description need not explain return values. The tool is complex (multiple discriminated union variants in `query`), but the description covers the breadth of possibilities and sets expectations about evidence limits. Given the complexity and annotation coverage, the description is fairly complete, though it could benefit from a hint on how to choose between the variants.

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. The description explains the `query` parameter implicitly by listing the kinds of inspections (material, light, camera, etc.) that map to the `kind` enums and nested schema. It provides an inventory of capabilities, which helps an agent know what to put in the `query` parameter. However, it does not explain how to structure the query beyond the schema, so the description adds some but not complete value.

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 lists the inspectable resources (material parameters, native lights, viewport camera, mesh/import dependencies, skeleton/animation compatibility, Widget Blueprint trees, approved surfaces, native Recast routes) and specifies that it is an inspection tool, not for execution or loading. It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying read-only inspection, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling as alternative.

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 for inspection tasks and explicitly states what it does NOT do (no compile, save, tracing into DCC files, or gameplay proof), which helps rule out inappropriate uses. However, it does not provide explicit conditions for when to use this tool versus sibling inspection tools (e.g., unreal_asset_dependencies, unreal_blueprint_inspect, etc.).

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