unreal_list_assets

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

The annotations (`readOnlyHint: true`, `idempotentHint: true`, `destructiveHint: false`) establish the safety profile, and the description's pagination details ('has_more', 'next_offset') and 'On failure: "Error: ..."' add useful behavioral context. However, the ReadOnly flag is carried by the annotation, so the description's incremental value is moderate—pagination behavior is helpful but not essential for safety, and the format is largely encoded in the output schema.

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?

The description is easy to scan with clear blocks: a concise opening, 'Use this to' usage, a detailed but structured output schema, and a 'Don't use when' conclusion. The code blocks break up the length, avoiding a wall of text while keeping only functional content.

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?

The description covers the primary use case (finding the object path), the output schema (with pagination and error handling), and the boundary condition ('Don't use when: actors in level'), covering the essential bases. The only minor gap is a few edge cases (e.g., invalid input) that are left to the schema to hint at, but nothing critical is missing.

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 `<input-schema>` provides detailed descriptions, types, and defaults for all five parameters, so the semantics are already well-covered by the schema. The description's 'Params' section and examples (e.g., ': default 50') add no meaningful lift beyond the schema, giving a solid baseline of 3 with no reason to boost or penalize.

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 opening statement 'List assets in the project's content browser, with filtering and pagination' is a precise verb+resource pairing, while 'Use this to find the object path of a asset before spawning it into a level' gives the precise context. It sharpens the focus without ambiguity, and the contrast with `unreal_spawn_actor (naming the sibling explicitly) makes the boundary clear.

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 opening 'Use this to' explains when to apply it, and the 'Don't use when: you want actors placed in the level (use unreal_list_actors)' names the sibling and the condition that selects it. This is the gold standard for when-to-not scenarios.

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