scan_project_assets

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

The description names the mechanism (Unreal Asset Registry) and the exact output fields, implying a read-only scanning operation. However, there are no annotations and no explicit statement about side effects, performance implications, empty results, or scope limitations, leaving part of the behavioral burden unmet.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then output summary, then a KB reference and example. Every sentence contributes, with no filler, though the missing parameter information keeps it from being fully complete.

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 output schema covers return shape, but the description lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and an explicit safety profile since no annotations are present. Given the large sibling list and the need to distinguish this from other asset search tools, the definition is not complete enough for confident tool selection.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the path, depth, or class_filter parameters. The example uses no arguments, so the agent is left to infer semantics solely from parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient particularly for class_filter.

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 clearly states the tool scans Content Browser assets via the Unreal Asset Registry and lists the returned inventory fields. This is a specific verb and resource with a concrete output description, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like ue_find_assets_by_class or project_find_assets.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling asset-inspection tools. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references, so an agent must guess which scanner or search tool is appropriate.

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