ue_reflect_enum

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 transparently explains the tool's limitation (does not cover UserDefinedEnum Blueprint assets) and the reason, plus the naming convention requirement. However, it does not mention error behavior if the enum is not found or confirm absence of side effects, though the read-only nature is implied.

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 concise yet complete, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by essential naming/limitation guidance and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a single-parameter reflection tool.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by stating what the tool returns (name, numeric value, display name). It also covers parameter usage, limitations, and the alternative path for unsupported enum types, making the tool fully understandable 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains the enum_name parameter through explicit 'E' prefix rule and examples ('CollisionChannel', 'ObjectTypeQuery'), adding far more meaning than the bare schema property. This fully clarifies how to construct the argument.

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 the tool lists name, numeric value, and display name of a native engine enum, with the specific verb 'Elenca'. It differentiates itself from related tools by explicitly excluding Blueprint asset enums and directing to ue_exec_python for those, making the purpose distinct.

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 explicit usage guidance: use for native engine enums, pass names without the 'E' prefix, and provides concrete examples. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use with an alternative tool (ue_exec_python) for UserDefinedEnum assets, which is exemplary contextual direction.

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