ue_profile

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

The annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and readOnly=false. The description adds useful context beyond them: the deliberate size-capping behavior (default sample-only) with a concrete measured example (18,956 entries → 15.8 MB), and the fact that a full profile can be written to a file via output_path. That explains the non-read-only annotation rather than contradicting it.

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 short and front-loaded: it states what the tool gathers first, then the size constraint and the alternative, and finally the arguments. The bolded header fragment is minor formatting noise, but every sentence adds real information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by saying what is returned (per .pak/.utoc file and directory counts plus sample entries) and warns about output size. For a 2-parameter, non-destructive extraction tool this is nearly complete; only the exact return envelope is left implicit.

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 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden, and it does document both parameters: exe (path to the game executable, empty means the current session's main program) and output_path (optional path for writing the full profile JSON). This is above baseline because it resolves the otherwise opaque empty-string defaults, though it does not specify accepted path formats or the output file's content.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair: it summarizes extractable information (asset containers, manifest, script objects) from an Unreal game, and it lists the concrete per-container data returned (file counts, directory counts, sample entries). It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling ue_list_entries, which returns the full listing, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool rather than the alternative: by default it returns only samples and counts, and if you want the complete listing you should use ue_list_entries. It does not cover other plausible siblings such as ue_manifest or ue_script_objects, and it gives no prerequisites, but the main routing decision is explicit.

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