unreal_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: results are metadata with no visual/acceptance significance, which sets expectations for the payload. Return-shape details are covered by the output schema, so no further burden falls on the description. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the first delivers action and target, the second a decision-relevant caveat. The most important constraint (metadata vs visual) is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with three optional parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the definition is nearly complete — an agent can invoke it correctly. The residual gap is unspecified search semantics (whether query is substring/name match and whether path scopes or filters results), which keeps it from a 5.

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%, and the description contributes nothing about path, query, or limit. The parameter names and defaults ('/Game', 100) make meanings partially inferable, but per the rubric the description must compensate for low schema coverage and does not — it never explains, for example, that path scopes the search to a content-browser directory or how query matches asset names.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('the Unreal asset registry'), and the 'metadata, not visual acceptance' caveat separates it from the many preview-focused siblings (unreal_preview, unreal_mesh_preview). It stops short of a 5 because it never names the closest alternatives (unreal_asset_details, unreal_asset_dependencies), so differentiation from detail-lookup tools is implicit rather than explicit.

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 the primary use case — locating assets in the registry — and the metadata warning tells the agent not to rely on these results for visual acceptance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, leaving the agent to infer boundaries against roughly 50 sibling tools.

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