ue_list_uclass_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation through 'List' and 'Returns', and it discloses the exact JSON response shape, the scope of returned properties, and the meaning of include_inherited. It does not describe invalid-class error behavior, but for an inspection tool this is a strong, mostly transparent definition.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-line summary, clear Args, a concrete return JSON example, a KB pointer, and a call example. Every section earns its place and none is redundant padding.

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 read-only listing tool with two parameters, the description covers the call signature, parameter meaning, output schema, and an example call. The detailed return contract and KB pointer make it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without needing the schema alone.

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%, yet the description compensates by explaining both parameters: class_name is illustrated with concrete examples like 'StaticMeshComponent' and 'PointLight', and include_inherited is described as controlling inherited properties with its default. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it could be more precise about accepted class-name formats.

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 sentence names an exact verb and resource: 'List editor-exposed properties (UProperties) for a UClass.' The qualifier 'accessible via set_editor_property() / get_editor_property()' clearly scopes this as the property-discovery counterpart to method-listing and reflection tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like ue_list_uclass_methods.

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 explains why this tool is useful: to discover the names, types, and categories of properties that can be passed to set_editor_property()/get_editor_property(). This gives a clear usage context, though 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.