ue_preflight

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

Discloses the ladder of tests (reachable, remote function calls, value round-trip, Python round-trip), stop-at-first-failure behavior, and return content (cause, fix, raw error). Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent; description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, mechanism, usage context. Front-loaded with key verb and resource. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters, present annotations, and existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage. No gaps identified.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline of 4 applies. Description does not need to add parameter info. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 defines a preflight probe that checks actual execution capability, not just connection. It distinguishes from ue_status by specifying what it tests and its use case. The verb 'probe' and resource 'capability' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever tools error but ue_status says connected', with a concrete example (UE 5.8's bAllowAnyRemoteFunctionCall block). This provides clear context and differentiation from alternatives.

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