ue_find_assets_by_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return JSON shape including success/count/truncated, default search_path and limit, and provides an example call. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, though 'Find' and the returned shape strongly imply no mutation.

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 a one-sentence purpose, followed by compact Args/Returns/KB/Example sections. Each section adds usable detail without redundancy; the docstring is long but not bloated.

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 read-only search tool with three parameters, the description covers input semantics, defaults, output format, truncation flag, and a concrete example. The KB pointer supplements guidance. Nothing essential for invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, but every parameter is explained in the Args block: class_name as a UClass name filter with examples, search_path as Content Browser root, and limit as max results. This exceeds the schema's bare type/title/default info.

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 sentence uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('Content Browser assets') with a clear filter ('given UClass'). The phrase 'Content Browser assets' distinguishes it from sibling find_actors_by_class, and the examples of class names further clarify scope.

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 explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as find_actors_by_class or project_find_assets, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The KB link is generic and does not explain routing. Usage must be inferred from the name and examples.

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