list_levels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists levels, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention what happens when project_path is omitted, whether the current project is used by default, or any potential side effects or failure modes. The optional parameter is entirely unexplained.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and object. This is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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 tool is simple, but the description leaves important gaps: the project_path parameter is undocumented, and there is no guidance on how this tool relates to sibling level operations. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but it does not compensate for missing parameter semantics and usage context.

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%, and the description does not mention project_path at all. Although the parameter name and title 'Project Path' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not explain how the path is used, what format is expected, or what the default behavior is when it is null. This is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 'List all levels available in an O3DE project' clearly states a specific verb ('list'), a resource ('levels'), and a scope ('in an O3DE project'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like load_level or create_level based on the verb, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_level_info or load_level. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback behavior, or which sibling tools are more appropriate for other scenarios. This is a clear gap.

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