ue_summarize_operation_effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly characterizes the tool as a 'snapshot' that 'summarizes' assets, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and it documents the exact return JSON structure. It stops short of explicitly stating 'does not modify assets' or describing recursion/perf characteristics, but the snapshot framing makes the behavior sufficiently transparent.

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 organized with clear Args, Returns, KB, and Example sections. The JSON return example is useful and not filler, and the when-to-use guidance is front-loaded. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each section earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so return structure is covered. The description includes usage guidance, parameter meaning, default, a return example, and a KB reference. The only notable omission is an explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement, but the 'snapshot' phrasing largely covers it, making the description complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema only provides a type and default for search_path with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds the semantic meaning 'Content Browser path to scan' and restates the default, which is enough for an agent to use the single optional parameter correctly. It doesn't explain path syntax or recursion behavior, but that's a minor gap for this simple parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('summarize'), a clear resource ('assets'), and the scope ('Content Browser'), and explicitly says it returns 'asset counts by class.' This distinguishes it from siblings like ue_find_assets_by_class, which retrieves assets rather than summarizing them as a snapshot.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before and after an import/modification operation to see what changed,' which gives clear, actionable context for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is unambiguous and further supported by the KB link.

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