list_project_setting_sections

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open world). The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond them: it enumerates only loaded, concrete subclasses 'without loading new modules', which warns the agent the result set depends on what is already loaded. It does not mention ordering or caching.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, and the field list is useful. There is mild redundancy: the fields are enumerated in the first sentence ('Returns count and sections [...]') and then restated as 'Returns: { count: int, sections: [object] }'.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return contract: count plus a sections array with six named fields, and the downstream handoff key class_name. It is nearly complete, though the individual meanings of container_name / category_name / section_name are left to inference.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words correctly on the return contract.

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 precise verb (List) and resource (every loaded, concrete UDeveloperSettings subclass / Project-Editor Settings sections), and explicitly separates itself from get_project_settings_value and set_project_settings_value, which it names. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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 routes the agent forward: 'pass class_name to get_project_settings_value or set_project_settings_value', which tells the agent this is the entry point for settings discovery. It gives clear context but does not explicitly exclude or compare against similar listing tools (e.g. list_engine_ini_sections, get_project_info).

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