unreal_workflow_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the receipt is retained for 15 minutes, which is useful temporal context for when it can be used, but it doesn't elaborate on what happens if the receipt expires or the return format.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words, but it is so brief that it might be under-specified, which slightly detracts from clarity.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter and an output schema, the description is relatively complete for simple reads. However, the lack of parameter semantics and any mention of what the receipt contains or how long it is valid (beyond 15 minutes) leaves gaps. The output schema likely covers return format, so the main missing piece is the meaning of plan_id.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'plan_id' means, how it relates to a receipt, or any format/constraints beyond the schema's basic type and length. The agent is left with a bare parameter name, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 (read) and the resource (domain edit receipt), which is clear but somewhat vague. It doesn't specify what a 'receipt' contains or how it relates to other tools like unreal_blueprint_compile_receipt, so it's distinguishable from siblings only by the 'domain edit' qualifier.

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 the tool is for reading receipts after a domain edit, but it does not mention when to use it versus other receipt or inspection tools. There is no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it, though the context of 'retained 15 minutes' suggests a recent-edit scenario.

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