inspect_anim_montage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Read structural properties') and provides implementation detail ('C++ handler; no new Build.cs deps'). It does not specify error behavior or permissions, but for a read tool this is acceptable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: list of properties, implementation note, and sibling context. No superfluous words.

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 a simple read inspector with one parameter. The description enumerates all key properties returned (skeleton, length, frame rate, blend envelope, sections, tracks, notifies) and situates it among siblings. No output schema is needed; the description covers what the agent needs to know.

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 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'path'. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'structural properties of a UAnimMontage asset'. It lists concrete properties (target skeleton, play length, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by naming the 'animation introspection trio' with inspect_anim_blueprint and inspect_skeletal_mesh.

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 by stating it 'completes the animation introspection trio', giving context for when to use this tool versus other inspection tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or any prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist).

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