ue_get_api_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get information' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description also specifies what information is returned (API routes) and the comprehensiveness ('all available'). While it omits details like return format or authentication needs, these are not critical for this simple discovery tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose—it states what it does and why it's useful. No filler or 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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fully explains the purpose and provides usage context. While it doesn't detail the exact structure of the returned route information, that is not essential for a user to understand the tool's function. The low complexity makes this description sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate since none exist. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description's mention of 'all available' reinforces that no filtering is possible, indirectly confirming the lack of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('all available Remote Control API routes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform operations like setting properties or spawning actors. The scope ('all available') is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for understanding what endpoints are available.' This implies a discovery/exploration use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and no comparable sibling exists for listing API routes.

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