ue5_run_console_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that destructive commands (quit, open, exit) are blocked and states a prerequisite (running editor session). However, it does not disclose whether the command returns output, whether execution is synchronous, or what happens when the editor is not running, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, follows with concrete usage examples, and ends with a critical safety note. 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and the schema sufficiently covers the parameter. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the agent should expect after execution—such as whether the command output is written to the UE log or whether the call returns any result. Given the sibling ue5_read_log exists, the description should clarify how output is retrieved, making it incomplete in this respect.

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% because the only parameter 'command' already has a descriptive schema entry with an example. The tool description adds context about valid use cases but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Execute a console command') and a precise resource ('running UE5 editor session'). It also names representative use categories (stat commands, CVars, level operations, actor spawning) and a distinguishing safety constraint, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like ue5_read_file or ue5_call_function.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool ('Use for stat commands, CVars, level operations, actor spawning, etc.'). It also implies when not to use it by mentioning blocked destructive commands, though it does not name alternative tools for other scenarios. This is clear context without exclusions.

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