inspect_physics_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: it's a C++ handler with no new dependencies, and it null-skips TObjectPtr entries (lesson from PR #55->#57). This is explicit and helpful.

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 dense but well-structured, listing specific items. It could be slightly more concise, but it effectively communicates the tool's capabilities without being overly verbose.

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 the simple input (one path parameter) and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (structural properties, subsets, profiles) and how it relates to a sibling tool. It is fully complete.

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?

There is only one parameter 'path' with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning 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 clearly states it reads structural properties of a UPhysicsAsset, listing specific components like body setups, constraint setups, and profiles. It differentiates from the sibling 'inspect_skeletal_mesh' by noting they pair via a shared preview skeletal mesh path.

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 mentions pairing with 'inspect_skeletal_mesh', implying when to use it (for physics assets). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond that pairing.

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