project_list_subsystems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and succeeds: it reveals the reflection-based implementation (unreal.get_all_classes_of_type() with no hand-curated list), the 10-second cache with refresh=True override, and the honest caveat that 'available' is always True. The last point is especially valuable because it prevents an agent from treating that field as meaningful signal.

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 long but earns its length by compensating for zero annotations and zero schema-level descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into scannable labeled sections (Categories, Each entry, Args, Returns, KB, Example), with every line carrying information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return note ('JSON StructuredResult with outputs matching the category filter') is sufficient. The description covers purpose, implementation, caching, allowed categories, per-entry fields, parameters with defaults, return type, an example, and a KB pointer—nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters with their defaults ('Which subsystem base class to enumerate. Default all.' and 'Force cache refresh. Default False.') and explicitly enumerating the valid category values. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles 'Refresh' and 'Category'.

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?

"Enumerate Unreal Engine Subsystem classes by category" uses a specific verb (enumerate) and a specific resource (Unreal Engine Subsystem classes), and the category list tightens scope further. No sibling tool covers subsystem enumeration, so an agent can unambiguously select this tool for discovery of subsystem classes.

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 operational context—reflection-based discovery, 10-second caching, and five category filters—so the intended use is implied. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., scan_project_assets or project_find_assets) and includes no when-not or exclusion conditions.

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