list_scripted_action_utilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value by enumerating the return fields (name, path, package_name, kind, parent_class, count, utilities) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about recursion depth, scope limits, or result size.

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 short lines, purpose front-loaded before the return shape, with no filler. Slightly terse on the return block but nothing 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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, closed-world annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose plus the return shape. Missing only scope/recursion and alternative-routing detail, which are minor here.

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 schema already documents both path and its asset_path alias, including the recommendation to prefer path. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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?

The description gives a concrete verb (List) and a specific resource (Editor Utility Blueprints that are scripted Asset/Actor Action Utilities), which is narrow enough to distinguish it from list_editor_utility_widgets and the create_*_utility siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling contrast, so it is clear but not fully 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_editor_utility_widgets or find_blueprint_assets_by_class. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before run_asset_action_utility purely from the name.

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