ue_open_level

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It provides an example path format but does not disclose side effects (e.g., closing current level), required permissions, error states (e.g., level not found), or whether the tool is read-only vs. mutating. This is adequate for a simple open operation but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: first states the primary action, second describes the parameter with an example. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 open-level tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter format. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling, prerequisites, or how the level is opened (e.g., in main editor vs. tabs). Nonetheless, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'path', but the description adds value by providing an example format ('/Game/MyGame/Levels/L_Main'). It does not explain the path semantics beyond the example, but this is sufficient for a typical user.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'apre' (opens), resource 'livello esistente' (existing level), and target 'nell\'editor' (in the editor). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_new_level (creates new level) and ue_editor_open (opens project), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ue_new_level. The description implies usage for opening existing levels, but does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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