get_hlod_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds one behavioral fact - it reads from the AssetRegistry rather than the loaded world - but says nothing about performance, whether unloaded/unmounted assets are visible, or pagination for large content trees.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the operation is front-loaded before the return contract. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by spelling out the return shape (path, hlod_layers with name/path/layer_type, count). For a two-parameter, zero-required read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient; only the failure mode for a nonexistent path is unstated.

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%, and the schema already documents the /Game default and explains the asset_path alias, so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists), a precise resource (UHLODLayer assets), and a scope (under a content path via the AssetRegistry). This distinguishes it from the singular get_hlod_layer_info by scope, though it never names any sibling or explicitly contrasts the two. Clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement - it is clearly a discovery/list operation for finding HLOD layer assets in a folder. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_hlod_layer_info, get_hlod_layer_actors, or build_hlod instead, and no stated prerequisites.

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