list_chooser_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the data source (AssetRegistry) and enumerating the exact fields of each row (row_count, column_count), which tells the agent the listing is a lightweight summary rather than a full table dump.

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. The action is front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately, so an agent can parse capability and output in one pass.

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?

With no output schema, the inline Returns block usefully documents the response shape. It remains slightly incomplete on whether the scan is recursive and whether a bad package path yields an empty list or an error, but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 default '/Game' and the empty-string scan-all escape hatch. The description only restates 'under a package path' without adding filtering syntax, recursion behavior, or case sensitivity, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource: list every UChooserTable asset under a package path, with the mechanism (AssetRegistry) named. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutators like create_chooser_table or delete_chooser_table, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with inspect_chooser_table for single-table detail.

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 scanning context is clear from 'under a package path', so usage is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., use inspect_chooser_table when you already have a specific table). The agent must infer routing from the sibling list alone.

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