inspect_sound_attenuation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the compact JSON structure with collapsed feature groups when master gates are off, and notes that it is a C++ handler with no new dependencies. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only with no side effects.

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 detailed and front-loaded with the purpose. While relatively long, each sentence provides useful information. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it earns its length.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, including output compression and technical context (C++ handler). It is complete for an inspect tool of this complexity.

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 single parameter 'path' has 100% schema coverage, but the description adds value by explaining expected asset paths (e.g., /Game/Audio/Atten_Default) and the asset type (USoundAttenuation), enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool as reading structural properties of a USoundAttenuation asset, listing all covered features (algorithm, shape, spatialization, etc.). It explicitly states it completes the audio introspection trio with siblings inspect_sound_cue and inspect_sound_wave, distinguishing it from those tools.

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 for inspecting sound attenuation assets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'audio introspection trio' but provides no direct guidance on when to choose this over other inspect tools.

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