ue_umg_tree_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing exactly what info is returned (names, classes, children, slot type) and a special case (root: null means empty tree with no addable root). It does not describe error behavior or side effects, but for a read-only info tool this is adequate.

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 only two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and an important edge case in the second. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 1-parameter read tool, the description covers the content of the returned hierarchy and the empty-tree case, which is good. However, it lacks parameter semantics and any mention of output format or error conditions, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention widget_blueprint_path at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should provide path format or examples, especially since schemas carry no 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 states the tool returns widget hierarchy information: names, classes, children, and slot type. It clearly identifies the resource (Widget Blueprint) and distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_umg_add_widget or ue_umg_remove_widget, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'lists'.

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 implies a usage context by explaining that an empty tree (root: null) cannot accept additions until a root exists, suggesting this tool is for checking hierarchy structure before adding widgets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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