list_assets_live

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool operates on the running editor and has a preference for live over cached data, which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not clarify fallback behavior if live data is unavailable or potential error conditions.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes to explaining what the tool does and its key differentiator, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core context: real-time operation from the running editor and a preference for live data. It lacks explicit details on output format or fallback behavior, but these are not critical for such a straightforward list operation.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'filter' parameter, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter, and the description does not contradict or extend it.

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 identifies the tool as listing assets from the running Unreal Engine Editor in real-time. It also distinguishes itself from similar tools like search_assets by explicitly stating a preference for live data over cached, making its purpose 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 'prefers live data over cached' implies a use case for real-time asset state, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Usage context is communicated but not formalized with clear exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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