list_levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains listing with optional filters but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, performance characteristics, or limits. As a listing tool, it is likely safe, but more explicit detail would improve transparency.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose and then details. Highly concise.

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 (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, and clarifies a common use case. It could mention the return format, but otherwise is sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by stating default values (path_under defaults to '/Game/') and constraints (must start with /Game/ or /Engine/), and that name_contains uses case-insensitive substring matching.

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 it enumerates all UWorld assets (levels) in the project, with optional filters. It distinguishes from sibling load_level_by_path by explaining it removes the need to know the package path beforehand.

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 this tool is for discovering levels when you don't know the path, contrasting with load_level_by_path. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives.

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