bp_list_assets

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the dependency on the UE5 C++ plugin and reveals the query mechanism (Asset Registry), which is useful. But it does not discuss pagination behavior despite a 5000 default limit, truncation, or permission requirements, leaving important operational details implicit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence; the Args section is compact and readable. Slight redundancy between first sentence and the 'Queries the Asset Registry' follow-up, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists (return values need not be described), and the description covers all three parameters plus the plugin precondition. Remaining gap is guidance on how this tool relates to sibling enumeration tools and pagination behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains class_filter as an asset class name (with examples), path as a prefix to search under (with default), and names the default limit. It does not explain the limit's semantics (e.g., truncation).

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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (project assets), and mechanism (Asset Registry, by class type). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like bp_search or bp_list_categories, which also enumerate blueprint/asset metadata. An agent might struggle to pick the right enumeration tool without opening schemas.

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?

Provides a vague use case ('discovering Blueprints, MetaSounds, SoundWaves ... before scanning') but no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no comparison to sibling tools like bp_search or bp_list_categories. The 'before scanning' hint is the only routing signal.

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