list_structs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful non-structured context: that only 'loaded' structs are enumerated and that it covers both native and Blueprint-defined types, plus the return shape. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the filter/return details following. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.

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, but the description supplies the return shape ({structs:[...], count}). With annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke this read-only list tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (including the `pattern`/`name_pattern` alias). The description only restates that filtering is by module or name substring, adding no syntax or format detail 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Enumerate loaded UScriptStruct types') plus the scope (native + user-defined/Blueprint). The purpose is unambiguous, though it never names or contrasts a sibling tool (e.g. get_struct_info or list_enums) to explicitly route selection.

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?

It mentions that filtering by module or name substring is optional, which implies the primary use case. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (get_struct_info / get_struct_members) to guide selection among struct-related siblings.

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