Retrieve every task in a UStateTree state to inspect task classes, instance IDs, and condition counts.
List all tasks of a state, with their struct class name, instance ID, and per-task condition count.
Returns: { tree_path, state_name, count, tasks: [{ index, class, instance_id, condition_count }] }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tree_path | Yes | Asset path to the UStateTree. | |
| state_name | Yes | Name of the state. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "tree_path"
-]New value: +[
+ "tree_path",
+ "state_name"
+]v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the exact return shape and per-task fields, though it does not discuss error behavior, pagination, or runtime vs. asset scope.
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 core action and then the return structure. Every sentence earns its place by adding either purpose or output clarity without redundancy.
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 tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and return shape well enough to call it correctly. It does not mention what happens if the state is missing or whether results are paginated, but those are minor gaps for this tool's complexity.
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 both parameters (tree_path, state_name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all tasks of a state,' and further specifies the returned fields (struct class name, instance ID, condition count). It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like list_states or list_conditions, so it is clear but lacks sibling routing.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this tool is for enumerating tasks within a given state tree asset and state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.