unreal_asset_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly declares the read-only nature and the classDefaults branching, which are useful behavioral signals. However, it does not disclose return shape, failure/not-found behavior, or how optional parameters like dryRun and allowWithEditorOpen affect execution, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The safety keyword 'READ-ONLY' is front-loaded, the asset scope is presented with concrete examples, and the sibling relationship is compressed into one useful clause.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description covers the core required parameters and the main behavioral branch. It is not fully complete because it omits return-value shape, error behavior, and the roles of the three optional parameters, which an agent would need for confident end-to-end use.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It does define the core semantics: 'props' are property display names and 'classDefaults: true' selects Blueprint class defaults. But it says nothing about dryRun, timeoutSeconds, or allowWithEditorOpen, relying on their names and defaults instead of explaining their behavior.

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 names a specific verb ('read properties'), a specific resource ('ANY asset' including DataAssets, meshes, materials), and a distinct mode ('Blueprint's class defaults'). It also differentiates itself from its sibling unreal_probe_actor by calling itself 'the asset-side sibling,' so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 'READ-ONLY' prefix and 'asset-side sibling of unreal_probe_actor' provide clear context for when to choose this tool: reading asset properties rather than actor properties. It does not enumerate exclusions versus write-oriented siblings like unreal_set_asset_properties, but the usage context is explicit enough for correct selection.

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