inspect_sound_cue

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read behavior ('Read structural properties') and includes a specific null-skip behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, though it's implied.

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?

Description is concise (two sentences plus a brief technical note) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a good list of output properties, including the full graph. It lacks explicit format details but is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 path parameter. The tool description reinforces the asset type (USoundCue) but does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema. 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?

Description explicitly states 'Read structural properties of a USoundCue asset' and lists specific properties, providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling inspect tools by naming the asset type.

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?

By specifying the asset type USoundCue, the description implies when to use this tool vs other inspect tools (e.g., inspect_sound_attenuation). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of many inspect tools makes this differentiation clear.

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