list_behavior_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the AssetRegistry mechanism and the exact return shape, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, performance, or scale limits.

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 tight lines, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the return shape; no filler. Slightly terse but 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?

For a single-parameter read-only listing tool whose annotations cover safety and whose return shape is inlined in the description, the definition is nearly complete. The only gap is lack of guidance on how this relates to the other behavior-config tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the single package_path parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the "/Game" default and empty-string behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Enumerate) and resource (UGameplayBehaviorConfig assets) scoped to a package path via AssetRegistry. An agent can distinguish it from the singular get_behavior_config_info, though the description never names that alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_behavior_config_info or the create/remove siblings. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Enumerate'.

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