List all evaluators in a UStateTree via its tree_path, returning their classes and instance IDs. Use this to inspect the evaluation logic configured in a state tree.
List all evaluators on the tree (UStateTreeEditorData::Evaluators — tree-scoped).
Returns: { tree_path, count, evaluators: [{ index, class, instance_id }] }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tree_path | Yes | Asset path to the UStateTree. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the tree-scoped data origin and the exact return shape (tree_path, count, evaluators with index/class/instance_id), which matters because no output schema exists.
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 compact lines: the scope statement comes first and the return contract second. No filler sentences, and every clause carries information.
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 one-parameter, read-only list tool this is complete: the scope is qualified, the required input is documented by the schema, and the return structure is spelled out in the absence of an output schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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% for the single tree_path parameter ('Asset path to the UStateTree'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no formatting or path-syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 clear verb+resource (List ... evaluators) and pins the scope with the parenthetical 'UStateTreeEditorData::Evaluators — tree-scoped', which distinguishes these instances from the evaluator *types* exposed by the sibling list_evaluator_types. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 'tree-scoped' qualifier and the requirement for a tree_path, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer list_evaluator_types or get_evaluator_info instead. An agent can infer the context but is not routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.