list_editor_utility_widgets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the results are 'read from the Asset Registry without loading them' and the search is recursive into subfolders, which tells the agent the call is cheap and non-loading.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing 'Returns:' sentence restates the field list already enumerated in the first sentence (search_path, count, widgets, name, asset_path, package_name, package_path), which is pure duplication.

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, so the description correctly spells out the return shape, and it covers scope, loading behavior, and the follow-up tool. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor redundancy as a flaw.

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%, so the schema already documents both `path` and the `asset_path` alias. The description only implies recursive folder scoping and mentions search_path in the return, adding little beyond the schema — the 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 ('List') plus a precise resource ('Editor Utility Widget Blueprint assets') and adds scope ('under a content folder and its subfolders'). It also names the sibling that consumes the results ('run_editor_utility_widget'), so an agent can separate listing from running without opening either schema.

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 description gives clear context for the tool and routes the agent to 'run_editor_utility_widget' as the follow-up action to open a discovered widget. It does not state exclusions or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a full 5.

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