run_console_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the command executes in the running editor and gives examples, but does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, required permissions, or what the output schema returns. Extra behavioral context would improve confidence.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by illustrative examples. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 with one parameter and has an output schema. The description covers what the tool does and what input is expected. It could mention when to use alternatives (like execute_python) or common pitfalls, but overall it is adequately complete for a straightforward tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'command' is a console command string and provides examples, which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal title. Not a 5 because it does not detail constraints like maximum length or valid characters.

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 states the tool executes an Unreal console command, using a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('an Unreal console command'). It provides concrete examples that clarify the scope, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like execute_python by specifying 'Unreal console command'.

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 says 'Anything you could type into the in-editor console works here', which clearly indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for Python scripts use execute_python), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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