list_localization_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by describing the exact return payload shape and naming the engine API the listing draws from, which is useful behavioral context for a read tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return contract. The inline C++ symbol names are slightly noisy but do anchor the tool to a real backend, so little is wasted.

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 simple read-only lister with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies both the source of the data and the response shape. Only the when-to-use guidance against sibling inspection tools 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% and the single scope parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to engine vs game target sets marginally reinforces the meaning of scope but adds no syntax or default detail the schema lacks.

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) and resource (localization targets), and grounds it in the concrete engine API (ULocalizationSettings::GetEngineTargetSet/GetGameTargetSet). An agent can immediately tell this apart from sibling culture tools like get_active_culture or set_active_culture.

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 scope parameter's semantics (engine/game/all) imply when to choose each variant, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_culture_info, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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