get_anim_graph_node_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context by noting it returns the runtime settings (typed JSON) as opposed to the graph pin surface, and lists example properties. It doesn't discuss permissions or pagination, which is minor for a read tool.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact Returns line, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the sibling contrast and use case. Minor trailing ellipsis in the property examples is the only soft spot.

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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, sibling distinction, and the return shape even without an output schema. Sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (node_id, graph_name, blueprint_name alias, anim_blueprint_path). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read'), a precise resource ('internal FAnimNode struct of an AnimGraphNode'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_graph_nodes by naming the K2 pin surface it does NOT report. An agent can pick it out without opening any 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?

Gives a concrete use case ('mirror a reference ABP's settings when grafting nodes') and differentiates from get_graph_nodes, but offers no explicit when-not or prerequisite conditions.

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