get_live_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior—preferring live data over cached—and mentions the dependency on the running editor. However, it does not specify safety (read-only), error behaviors, or return format details, leaving some gap.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose and the live-data preference without any fluff. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with zero parameters and no output schema, but the description's 'project information' is vague and could mean many things. It does not describe the structure or types of information returned, which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema. More specificity about the return value would improve completeness.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already exhaustively documents parameters. The description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter details. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool's action ('Get'), resource ('live project information'), and source ('running Unreal Engine Editor'). It also distinguishes itself by noting the preference for live data over cached, which sets it apart from potential siblings like get_game_info. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (when live data is needed over cached) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It gives a contextual hint about the live-vs-cached tradeoff but lacks clear 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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