ue_find_structs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, whether the search is recursive (all descendants) or direct children only, or what the output list contains (names, paths, etc.). The verb 'Elenca' implies a listing but does not confirm safety or result format.

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 exceptionally concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean, organized Args list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

While the description covers parameters and scope well, it omits the return value format (e.g., list of names vs. paths) and error behavior. Since there is no output schema to clarify these, the description leaves a moderate gap in what the agent can expect from the tool.

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 the description's Args section thoroughly explains all three parameters: parent accepts either a Python-bound name or a full path with examples, name_contains is case-insensitive, and limit caps results. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema types, fully compensating for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 'Elenca gli struct derivati da uno struct base, base incluso' (Lists structs derived from a base struct, base included), providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like ue_find_classes by focusing on structs rather than classes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like ue_find_classes or clarify when to choose struct discovery over class discovery, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter descriptions alone.

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