ue_get_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint (only public properties without BlueprintGetter) and points to the alternative for getters. The verb 'read' implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not explicitly mention return format or error behavior. This is solid transparency for a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second provides essential usage boundaries. Zero 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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is complete for a simple read tool. It clearly defines the operation, states the eligibility rule, and directs the user to sibling tools for related tasks. The 2-parameter schema is fully covered, and no additional context is necessary.

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 both parameters described. The description adds context about what constitutes a readable property but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or types beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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?

Specific verb 'Read' plus resource 'property value from a UObject' clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from ue_call_function for getter-based properties and references ue_describe_object for property discovery.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool vs ue_call_function ('For properties with getters, use ue_call_function instead') and advises using ue_describe_object to see available properties. This is direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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