Checks one executable to determine whether it is an Unreal Engine game. Returns verifiable evidence, a confidence score, and an explicit reason when UE version data is unavailable.
判断一个 exe 是否为 Unreal 引擎游戏，并给出可核查的证据与置信度。
只判定这一个程序，不做全机扫描。
UE 版本号拿不到是正常的：实测两个样本中 exe 内 UE 版本模式 0 命中， Engine/Build/Build.version 也不存在。此时返回空串 + 原因，不猜测。
Args: exe: 游戏可执行文件路径。留空则用当前会话的主程序。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exe | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. Instead it discloses behavior beyond the annotations: how results come back (evidence + confidence), and that a UE version is frequently unavailable and yields an empty string plus a reason rather than a guess, which prevents an agent from misreading a missing version as failure.
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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then scope, then the caveat about missing version info, then Args. It is short and every block adds value; the empirical note about two samples justifies the no-guessing rule rather than padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description does explain the return shape (evidence, confidence, and empty string + reason when the version is absent). Given annotations covering the safety profile and only one optional parameter, what remains is minor; the set of evidence types the agent can expect is only sketched.
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 carry the parameter meaning, and it does: exe is the game executable path, and leaving it empty falls back to the current session's main program. That default behavior is not visible in the schema, which only shows default ''.
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 first sentence states a specific task: decide whether one exe is an Unreal Engine game, and return verifiable evidence plus a confidence level. The scope line ('only judges this one program, no whole-machine scan') separates it from scan-style siblings such as find_game_processes, though it does not name a sibling directly.
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 it handles a single program rather than a machine-wide scan, which implies when to use it. However, it never names the alternative (find_game_processes / inspect_binary / inspect_game) or states an explicit condition for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.