ue5_read_pie_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool is a read/poll operation and that it should be checked before runtime reads, but it does not disclose behavior when PIE is not running, return formatting, or any failure semantics. Some useful context is added beyond the tool name, but significant behavioral details remain implicit.

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 core purpose and usage guidance in two short clauses. The bilingual repetition adds some length without new semantic content for an English-reading agent, but the overall structure remains compact and scannable.

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 provides enough context for a zero-argument polling tool: it lists the state fields and explains when to poll it relative to ue5_start_pie. Since there is no output schema, it could have specified value types or non-PIE behavior, but the names are self-explanatory and the workflow cue covers the main use case.

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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, this is fully adequate; no parameter documentation is needed.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('PIE state') and enumerates the exact data exposed (is_playing, world name, paused, game time). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ue5_read_pie_property, which targets actor properties rather than the overall PIE session state.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Poll this after ue5_start_pie before reading runtime actors/properties.' This tells an agent when in the workflow to call it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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