inspect_sound_wave

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: it reads structural properties (stateless), handles LazyOnDemand caveat, emits conditional fields for editor-only data, and mentions C++ handler with no Build.cs deps. This provides good transparency beyond the basic read operation.

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 a single dense paragraph listing many properties. While front-loaded with the purpose, it lacks bullet points or sections for better readability. It is adequate but could be more concise and structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: properties returned, conditional/editor-only fields, and the LazyOnDemand handling. It is mostly complete, though it could mention error scenarios for invalid paths.

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 input schema has 100% coverage on the single parameter 'path' with a clear description. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline.

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 USoundWave asset', using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly lists the properties and distinguishes from siblings (e.g., inspect_audio_bus, inspect_sound_cue) by focusing on USoundWave-specific attributes.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for inspecting sound wave details but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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