list_derived_classes

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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotence, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: loaded_only=false queries the asset registry and returns only class_name/path with loaded=false for unloaded Blueprint subclasses. It does not discuss performance implications, but the key data-completeness behavior is disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the second sentence covers the key conditional behavior, and the return shape is compactly stated. Every part earns its place, especially since no output schema exists.

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 description supplies the return object shape including fields, count, and loaded status. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its output.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description clarifies the consequence of loaded_only=false in more detail than the schema, but it does not explain include_abstract or include_blueprints behavior, so it adds only marginal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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: enumerate every class derived from a base class, native and Blueprint. It explicitly positions itself as the generalization of list_subsystem_classes to any UObject hierarchy, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling tool without opening schemas.

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?

Names the sibling list_subsystem_classes and explains the broader scope (any UObject hierarchy), giving clear context for when to choose this tool over that alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against other related siblings such as get_blueprint_children or get_class_hierarchy, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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