remote_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'generate_transaction' which hints at transactional behavior, but it does not state safety (read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, error handling, or side effects. The description is insufficient for predicting tool behavior.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is structured with bullet points, making key information easy to scan. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the list could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the core function and parameter structure. However, it lacks guidance on error behavior, authentication, and when to use this tool over siblings. For a generic gateway tool, more context about fallback usage and side effects would improve completeness.

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 has only one untyped 'kwargs' string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by listing supported sub-parameters (object_path, actor_label, etc.) and their meanings, adding significant semantic information beyond the schema. However, it could be clearer on format (e.g., exact JSON structure).

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 clearly states the verb 'Call' and resource 'any Unreal Remote Control function', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from more specific sibling tools like set_object_property or modify_actor, which could cause confusion about when to use this generic tool vs. specialized ones.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but does not indicate prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Sibling tools cover specific operations (e.g., create_static_mesh_actor), so usage guidance is missing.

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