unreal_list_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden and meets it by leading with 'READ-ONLY'. It also adds a performance trait ('Cheap') that helps the agent understand the tool's side-effect and cost profile. It does not detail output shape or editor-related behavior, but for a read-only query this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the most important behavioral signal (READ-ONLY) and a clear resource scope. The second sentence earns its place by giving strategic usage context. No padding or redundancy.

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 is sufficient for selecting the tool and for the core path/filter invocation, but incomplete for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema. It does not describe return format, pagination/limit behavior, dryRun semantics, timeout, or allowWithEditorOpen. This leaves gaps an agent must guess or probe.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaningful substring semantics for nameContains and classContains, but leaves limit, dryRun, timeoutSeconds, and allowWithEditorOpen completely unexplained. With 7 parameters and 4 of them semantically dark, the description only partially carries the burden.

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 specific verb 'query', the exact resource ('asset registry under a /Game path'), and the optional filters (class-name and asset-name substrings). It also signposts this as a discovery tool versus the probe/set siblings, making the tool's role 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?

The phrase 'Cheap discovery before probe/set tools' explicitly tells the agent when this tool should be used relative to the mutation/probing siblings. It lacks a named list of alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the positioning is clear enough for correct tool selection.

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