get_blueprint_functions_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that is_override is resolved against the parent class chain AND interfaces with the declaring class reported, that is_pure comes from the UK2Node_FunctionEntry FUNC_BlueprintPure flag, and that event_graphs are transient compiled graphs that come back empty on an uncompiled Blueprint. That last point is exactly the kind of surprising behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose before routing advice and warnings, and the WARNING is clearly marked so the critical caveat is not buried. It is dense and information-rich rather than padded, though phrases like 'REAL ... not guessed' and the parenthetical flag reference are more emphatic than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the full return shape (per-function fields, counts, truncation and validity flags, ambiguous_matches). Combined with the transient-graph caveat and the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 seven parameters (including the filter_type enum, aliasing of blueprint_path, and include_* defaults) are already documented in the schema. The description lists the graph families but adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description specifies the exact verb and resource ('List every graph a Blueprint AUTHORED') and enumerates the graph families it returns (function graphs, macros, interface impl graphs, event graphs, ubergraph pages). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_class_functions (compiled surface) and get_function_info (single signature), so an agent can route 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?

It states the sequencing rule ('The map to read before get_graph_nodes, which needs an exact graph name') and names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each ('Use get_class_functions for the compiled class surface ... and get_function_info for one function's signature'). It also gives an explicit when-not: an empty event_graphs is not an absence of events.

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