ue_list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic listing action. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, whether there are limits on recursion depth, or performance considerations, leaving gaps for the agent.

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, with three sentences for purpose and parameter explanations. It front-loads the main action and uses a structured args list, though some details could be integrated into the schema.

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?

The description covers the essential usage but lacks details on default behavior (e.g., recursive=true), output format, and edge cases. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but additional context like case-sensitivity of class_filter would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: path (example '/Game/MyGame'), recursive (include subfolders), and class_filter (partial class name filter). This compensates for the lack of schema 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 'Elenca gli asset presenti sotto un path del Content Browser' (list assets under a path of the Content Browser), providing a specific verb (list) and resource (assets under a path). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_delete_asset or ue_import_assets.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for listing assets, it lacks exclusions or context that would help an agent decide between this and similar tools like ue_list_actors.

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