inspect_skeletal_mesh

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly identifies the tool as read-only ('Read structural properties') and lists returned data (bounds, skeleton, etc.). It does not elaborate on error scenarios or side effects, but for a read operation, the safety profile is adequately conveyed.

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, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear bullet-point-style listing of properties. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (per-LOD counts, bounds, skeleton, etc.). It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100% (single 'path' parameter with description). The tool description adds an example path, which is helpful but not essential. The schema itself sufficiently defines the parameter, so the description adds marginal value.

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 starts with 'Read structural properties of a USkeletalMesh asset', clearly stating the verb and resource. It lists specific properties and distinguishes from sibling 'inspect_static_mesh' with a note on cross-handler consistency, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 skeletal mesh properties but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. It mentions mirroring 'inspect_static_mesh' for consistency, which hints at use alongside that tool, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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