list_content_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a non-destructive 'browse' action and documents filtering/flags, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that it causes no modifications, nor does it mention potential performance implications or how recursion behaves in edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a neatly formatted Args list. Each line adds necessary information without redundant filler, striking a good balance between detail and brevity.

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 provides sufficient operational detail for a straightforward listing tool: purpose, all parameters, and exemplars. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return structure. It falls short of a perfect score only by omitting explicit non-mutation guarantees or usage boundaries, though these are strongly implied.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with concrete examples (e.g., path: '/Game/Devices', class_names: ['StaticMesh', 'Blueprint']). This directly addresses the schema gap and gives the agent actionable meaning for every argument.

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 opens with 'Browse assets in the content browser,' which is a specific verb + resource, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like list_actors (which targets actors). It further clarifies scope with examples like props, Blueprints, and materials.

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 implicitly conveys usage by defining the tool's purpose and parameters, but it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over list_actors or other content-browser tools.

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