get_anim_blueprint_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: it states the operation neither compiles nor changes the asset, and clarifies counting semantics ('conduits not counted') and that only the top-level AnimGraph is scanned. This is meaningful behavioral detail not present in structured fields.

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 and its non-mutating constraint are front-loaded, followed by a labeled Returns block. It is slightly long and the Returns block restates a full object shape, but with no output schema present that content earns its place. Prose is dense with 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the complete return shape, including nested state_machines entries, which is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. Combined with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage on inputs, little is left unspecified.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (including the alias explanation for blueprint_name). The description adds nothing about input parameters, so it neither compensates nor detracts; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Read) and resource (Animation Blueprint) and enumerates exactly what is extracted: target skeleton, parent/generated class, is_anim_instance, is_template, graph_count, and top-level AnimGraph state machines with state counts. It also contrasts behavior with nearby tools ('without compiling or changing it', 'list_anim_state_machines scans every function graph'), so an agent can tell it apart from compile_anim_blueprint and list_anim_state_machines 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?

Usage context is clear: read-only inspection of an AnimBlueprint, explicitly not compiling or mutating. The closing note about list_anim_state_machines scanning every function graph implicitly routes the agent to that tool when whole-graph coverage is needed. However, there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' framing, and the near-identical sibling get_animation_blueprint_info is never addressed.

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