ue_list_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add that results carry `returned`/`has_more` and that an empty page explains which kind of 'empty' occurred, but that last point is vague and nothing is said about limits, scale, or cost on large archives.

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?

Purpose, return fields, and the motivating scenario are front-loaded before the Args block, so the agent gets the essentials first. The '这是 UE 游戏上最实用的一步' line is partly promotional but doubles as usage framing, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the description covers the needed ground: what is listed, how to filter/page, and the shape of the paging response. A reader can call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 Args block is doing the real work: all five parameters are explained, including kind's auto/pak/utoc values (absent from the schema), pattern's case-insensitivity, and offset's paging role. Minor gaps remain — no max value for limit, and it references a `total` field not otherwise described.

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 and resource: list which assets are packed inside a .pak/.utoc container, with filtering and paging. An agent can immediately tell this is an archive-listing tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as ue_manifest or ue_profile, which plausibly 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('想知道这游戏有哪些资源、本地化文本在哪个文件里, 就靠它'), which tells the agent the triggering question well. It stops short of exclusions — there is no statement of when to prefer ue_manifest or another sibling instead.

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