get_blueprint_material_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 genuinely non-obvious behavior: slot count derives from the assigned mesh's LOD 0 sections, and with no mesh it returns zero slots plus has_static_mesh:false, which signals a missing mesh rather than a missing material. This is exactly the kind of semantic trap an agent needs disclosed.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, then verification role, then the empty-result caveat, then the return shape. It is on the long side and repeats the has_static_mesh-first guidance, but every part carries real decision value, especially given there is no output schema.

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 carries the full burden of return-value documentation and does so thoroughly, giving the exact response shape and instructing the agent to read has_static_mesh before interpreting total_slots. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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 blueprint_name, blueprint_path (alias), and the component_name constraint as an OWN SCS UStaticMeshComponent. The description echoes the OWN SCS / StaticMeshComponent constraint but adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 precise verb and resource: reads material slots of ONE StaticMeshComponent TEMPLATE in a Blueprint (an OWN SCS node). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_actor_material_info (for placed actors) and from apply_material_to_blueprint/set_static_mesh_properties, so an agent can select it 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?

Explicitly frames itself as the verification step after apply_material_to_blueprint / set_static_mesh_properties, and routes the agent to get_actor_material_info when the target is a placed actor. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else cases are covered.

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