get_montage_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get core metadata' without explaining what fields are returned, whether the operation is purely read-only (though 'get' implies it), or any potential side effects. The ambiguous scope of 'core metadata' leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's actual 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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. It has no wasted words and is appropriately sized for a simple getter. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification, which prevents a higher score despite the efficient structure.

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 that the tool has only one parameter and an output schema (which presumably describes the return structure), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, and the ambiguous 'core metadata' leaves gaps about what the tool covers. This is a bare-minimum description for a simple tool with clear room for improvement.

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 description adds value by providing a concrete example ('/Game/Montages/AM_Attack') and specifying that asset_path is an Unreal asset path. This compensates for the bare schema field (which has no description), but it doesn't fully elaborate on constraints like asset existence or path validation. The example clarifies the format but the description remains thin.

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 tool's function: 'Get core metadata for an AnimMontage.' It uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource (AnimMontage). However, the term 'core metadata' is vague, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_montage_sections or get_sync_markers, which also return montage-related data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, exclusions, or trade-offs. This leaves an agent unable to decide between get_montage_info and other montage-focused getters without additional reasoning.

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