game_ui_item_list

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 lists mutating operations (add, remove, clear) but reveals no side effects, signal emissions, or state changes, and gives no warning that these actions modify the scene. An agent cannot anticipate the consequences of invoking the destructive actions.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words: resource type first, operations second. It is efficient and scannable. It loses a point because it is terse to the point of under-specification given that no annotations or output schema provide the missing detail.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 5 actions, no annotations, and no output schema, this fragment is incomplete. It does not specify which parameters each action requires, what get_items returns, or how clear behaves. An agent cannot reliably construct valid calls for every action from the description and schema alone.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already documents nodePath, action values, text, and index. The description adds only the domain term "items" and loosely mirrors the action enum, while omitting per-action parameter requirements (add needs text, select needs index) and index semantics. It does not meaningfully exceed what the schema already provides.

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 specific resources (ItemList/OptionButton) and a concrete operation set (get/select/add/remove), so the verb+resource contract is clear. The widget-type naming helps distinguish it from UI siblings targeting other widget types (game_ui_text, game_ui_tree, game_ui_menu). It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts with game_ui_control or states what "get" returns.

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 "ItemList/OptionButton" prefix gives an implied usage context: use this tool when working with item collections on those node types. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives among the many UI-related siblings. Selection is left to inference.

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