List files inside UE .pak archives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses support for AES-encrypted indexes and bit-flipped AES, and notes it works without umodel. It also indicates the need to ask the user for the directory. However, it does not mention read-only nature explicitly, output format, or behavior when AES key is missing, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only relevant details. It efficiently communicates purpose, workflow, and user interaction without redundancy.

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 listing tool with no output schema and moderate complexity (7 params), the description provides a good overall context: what it does, when to use it, and a user interaction note. It does not explicitly mention pagination or the json option, but the schema covers those. It is slightly incomplete for a no-annotation scenario, but sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about AES support but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. It does not suffer from omissions, but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 parses UE .pak index files and lists asset paths matching filters. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it works without umodel and should be used before pak_extract for asset location.

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 explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this before pak_extract to locate assets'. It also provides user-interaction guidance, stating the pak directory should come from the user and to ask which game directory to unpack first. This clearly positions the tool in the workflow.

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