list_data_registry_sources

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the reflection-based read of UDataRegistry::DataSources[] and the FProperty fallback explaining why it is portable across DataTable source variants. This is useful behavioral detail.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by rationale and the return shape. The reflection explanation is somewhat detailed but earns its place by justifying portability; overall efficient.

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, and the description compensates by specifying the return shape ({ registry_path, source_count, sources[{index, class, source_table}] }). Combined with annotation coverage and full param documentation, this is nearly complete for a single-param read tool.

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 single registry_path parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax or format meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List the DataTable sources attached to a UDataRegistry asset'), with clear scope distinguishing it from the count-only sibling get_data_registry_source_count. However it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for the agent to compare against.

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 purpose (retrieve the list of DataTable sources), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative guidance versus list_data_registry_types, get_data_registry_info, or get_data_registry_source_count.

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