scan_unreal_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the scan is read-only, if it requires engine installation, what side effects exist, performance implications, or what the return value looks like. The list of analyzed elements is useful but insufficient.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence clearly states the action and scope. No wasted words; every element (uproject, modules, plugins, C++ classes, assets) adds specificity.

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 tool has one well-documented parameter and a clear purpose, but no output schema and no annotation. The description does not explain the return value, scan depth, or any limitations. It is minimally viable but leaves important contextual gaps for a 'deep scan' tool.

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 schema describes project_path as an absolute path to the project directory containing the .uproject file, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, but the schema fully documents the param, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('Unreal Engine project structure') with concrete elements (uproject, modules, plugins, C++ classes, assets). It distinguishes from many siblings like get_blueprint_functions, but does not explicitly differentiate from validate_project_structure, which could overlap.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage via 'deep scan' but does not state a specific scenario or contrast with sibling tools.

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