list_meta_sounds

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by spelling out the exact return shape, which matters since no output schema exists, but it omits any mention of result size or pagination behavior for a potentially unbounded asset listing.

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 operation first, then the return contract. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 enumerator, the description covers purpose, scope, and return shape, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gap is the absence of any note on result volume or whether large content paths are truncated.

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% for the single package_path parameter, and the description's only added detail ('default /Game') merely restates the schema description verbatim. No extra syntax or path-format guidance beyond the schema, 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 ('List'), a precise resource ('UMetaSoundSource assets'), and the scope ('under a content path'). The class-specific framing cleanly separates it from siblings like list_meta_sound_references and list_meta_sound_nodes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied by the nature of a listing tool; the description never states when to prefer this over list_meta_sound_references, list_meta_sound_nodes, or get_metasound_info, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate for a simple enumerator but no explicit routing guidance.

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