ue_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It specifies the main behavior (reading a .uproject file and returning engine version, plugins, bridge status) and adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or side effects.

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 that conveys all essential information without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to scan.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the tool reads and what data it returns. It is mostly complete, though it could mention the output format (e.g., JSON) and potential error cases (e.g., file not found).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It states the tool reads a .uproject file, implying 'uproject' is a file path. However, it lacks details about path format (absolute/relative), file extension, or existence requirements, which are needed 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 clearly states the verb 'Legge' (reads) and the resource '.uproject', and lists specific information retrieved: engine version, active plugins, and bridge readiness. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_project_create or ue_project_find.

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 inspecting a .uproject file but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Context from sibling names provides some differentiation, but the description itself lacks guidance.

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