get_blueprint_children

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond them: the exact return shape, truncation signaling (results_truncated, children_count, max_results), and ambiguity resolution via ambiguous_matches. It stops short of stating pagination or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact clause for alternatives, then a structured Returns line. No filler sentences; each clause either routes the agent or describes output. The Returns block is dense but scannable.

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 compensates by enumerating the return object fields, including optional ambiguous_matches and the truncation flags. Combined with the explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to select and call the tool correctly.

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 all three parameters (max_results, blueprint_name, blueprint_path alias) are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning ambiguous_matches, which the schema also covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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+resource (list Blueprint assets inheriting from a given Blueprint), and frames the intent with a memorable use-case ('what breaks if I change this base class'). It explicitly positions itself as the inverse of get_blueprint_parent, so an agent can distinguish it from the nearby hierarchy tools without opening a 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?

Names three concrete alternatives with the condition that selects each: find_blueprint_assets_by_class for native C++ bases, get_class_hierarchy to walk upwards, and get_asset_referencers for non-inheritance references. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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