get_changed_assets_since

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the underlying mechanism (comparing package file modification times), optional inclusion of dirty in-editor packages, acceptance of multiple timestamp formats, and the exact structure of the returned output.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then structured into Args, Returns, KB reference, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the example illustrates a realistic call without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential information: parameter semantics, return structure, timestamp formats, and a usage example. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the 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 0%, but the description compensates fully with a detailed Args section. Every parameter gets a meaningful explanation beyond its type: path is 'Content root to scan', include_unreal_generated is defined, and limit's 0 semantics are clarified.

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 first line, 'List Content Browser assets changed since a timestamp,' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ue_find_assets_by_class or find_actors_by_class by focusing on changed assets based on timestamps.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a list of assets modified after a given timestamp. It provides context such as content root scanning and dirty package handling, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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