inspect_curve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads structural properties (non-destructive), mentions it's a C++ handler with no new dependencies, and details the exact information returned.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It provides essential details in a well-structured manner with no wasted 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 description is complete given the single parameter and no output schema. It explains the return values thoroughly, covering curve class, channel count, time/value ranges, and per-channel info.

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% for the single parameter 'path', with description 'UE asset path of a UCurveBase'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 explicitly states the tool reads structural properties of a UCurveBase asset, listing specific properties (curve class, channel count, ranges, etc.) and explaining channel layouts for subclasses. It clearly distinguishes from sibling inspect tools by focusing on curve assets.

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 the tool is for reading curve asset properties without specifying when to use versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling inspect tools (e.g., inspect_anim_blueprint) makes it clear this is for UCurveBase assets.

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