get_blueprint_components

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's value-add is the scope and interpretation caveats: own-SCS-only semantics, the ancestor-exclusion trap, and the deduplication note on get_blueprint_scs_tree. It does not disclose error behavior for an unknown blueprint_name, keeping it just short of 5.

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 one-sentence purpose and scope, then alternatives, then a structured Returns block. The Returns block is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists; the only minor cost is length and heavy inline field enumeration that could be tightened.

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 correctly carries the full return shape and field semantics (parent fallback, parent_is_native, conditional location/rotation/scale for scene components), plus scope caveats and the sibling cross-reference. Only gaps are error/failure behavior and any performance or pagination considerations.

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 (blueprint_name plus the blueprint_path alias) are fully documented in the schema itself, including the 'prefer blueprint_name' guidance. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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 and resource ('List the components this Blueprint DECLARES in its own SCS') and immediately pins the scope so it can be told apart from sibling readers like get_blueprint_scs_tree and get_blueprint_components_list. The list of returned fields (type, transform, parent, parent_is_native, attach_socket, children) makes the deliverable concrete.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition selecting it: use get_blueprint_scs_tree for the full picture including ancestors, and cross-check the CDO when existence must be proven. It also gives an explicit when-not/warning ('a small count is not proof the actor is small') and states the scope boundary (inherited/native components are not here).

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