editor_list_blocking_dialogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. The verb 'List' and the qualifier 'visible' imply a read-only scan, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return behavior, whether an Unreal process must be running, or any failure semantics, so the behavioral picture is partial rather than complete.

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 short and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, a KB pointer, and a zero-argument example. Every element has some value, though the example is slightly redundant since the parameter schema already makes the arguments optional.

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 list tool with an output schema and a KB reference, this definition is largely sufficient. It could have explicitly mentioned that the results feed into editor_dismiss_blocking_dialog, but that omission is minor and the overall invocation context is clear.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the two optional filters. It does not mention title_contains or process_name_contains at all, and the example only shows a zero-argument call. The parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, but no matching or filtering behavior is described.

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 ('List'), a concrete resource ('visible Unreal/Windows dialogs'), and the purpose ('that can block MCP automation'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling editor_dismiss_blocking_dialog, which handles the opposite action.

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 gives clear context: use it when you need to see visible Unreal/Windows dialogs that might block automation, and the KB link offers additional process context. It does not explicitly contrast with editor_dismiss_blocking_dialog or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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