ue5_read_pie_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the verb 'read' and the schema's note about empty property_name. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., a running PIE session), error behavior, or explicit non-mutating guarantees beyond the word 'read'.

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 English text is a compact two-sentence description: the first sentence front-loads the core function and list-candidates behavior, and the second adds a useful usage scenario. The Chinese is a translation, not extra filler.

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 description omits important operational details such as whether an active PIE session is required and what the tool returns (property value vs. a list of names). With no output schema or annotations, these gaps leave the agent to infer critical calling context, though the tool is simple enough that the core behavior is clear.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the 'empty = list candidates' behavior for property_name. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Read', the resource 'runtime Actor property', and the context 'in PIE', and clearly distinguishes a special mode where omitting property_name lists candidate properties. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ue5_read_pie_state and ue5_list_pie_actors.

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?

It provides a concrete use case: 'Use this to prove game logic ran (e.g. health changed after a pickup).' This gives the agent clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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