ue_find_classes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits: 'base included', native and Blueprint classes, and the generated Blueprint name suffix ('BP_PlayerCharacter_C'). However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free/read-only behavior, return format, or error conditions, which are typically expected from a query tool without annotations.

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: a clear purpose sentence, two illustrative examples, then an Args block. It is slightly longer than necessary but each sentence adds value, especially given the lack of schema descriptions. No redundant filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, and parameter syntax thoroughly. It implies the return value (a list of class names) but does not explicitly specify the return format or edge cases (e.g., empty results). Given the complexity, this is acceptable but leaves a small gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential extra meaning for all three parameters: parent (Python binding name or full path with examples), name_contains (case-insensitive filter, optional), and limit (maximum results). This goes far beyond the bare schema and is critical for effective invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Lists the classes (native and Blueprint) derived from a base class, base included.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_list_assets (assets) and ue_find_structs (structs). Concrete examples ('what subclasses of Character exist in the project?', 'list the available lights') further solidify the purpose.

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?

It provides clear usage context via the question examples ('what subclasses of Character exist?', 'list the available lights'), which tell the agent when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for structs use ue_find_structs), so it stops short of a 5.

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