unreal_snapshot_level

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the key side effect—'Writes inside the repo'—and 'regenerate' implies overwriting the existing markdown. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as requiring Unreal to run, potential long runtime, or what happens if the editor is open, despite there being parameters related to those behaviors.

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 compact sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and the payload details. Every clause 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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. An agent can infer a default invocation, but it cannot assess dry-run behavior, timeout constraints, editor-safety implications, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for correct usage.

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 20%, so the description must compensate, but it explains almost nothing about the parameters. It implies the map path and that output is written to a file, but dryRun, outFile, timeoutSeconds, and allowWithEditorOpen are not semantically clarified beyond their names and defaults.

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 names a specific verb ('Regenerate') and a specific resource ('level snapshot markdown'), and even details what the snapshot contains (label, class, transform, tags for every actor). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like uds_inspect_level, which is about inspecting rather than regenerating a file.

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 when the tool should be used by referencing CLAUDE.md and the authoritative snapshot status, but it does not explicitly state conditions like 'use when the snapshot is stale' or contrast with alternatives such as uds_inspect_level for read-only inspection. Usage context is present but largely inferred.

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