utmt-info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only info operation by stating it 'gets' and 'returns' JSON, and explicitly lists the returned fields. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or reliance on the UndertaleModCli executable, though these are inferable from the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and output format without any fluff.

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?

For a simple info retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the return payload and the tool's scope. It does not enumerate every entity type or explain potential edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for deeper operations, this level of completeness is adequate.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (cliPath and dataFilePath) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools without adding extra value.

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 with a specific verb ('Get'), a defined resource ('GameMaker data file'), and a precise output ('JSON with project name, GM version, isYYC flag, and resource counts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like utmt-list-entities and utmt-get-entity by focusing on an overview summary rather than listing or retrieving specific entities.

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 implies usage for getting a high-level overview of a data file but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or mention prerequisites (e.g., valid CLI path). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the usage context mostly implied.

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