get_enum_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial non-structured behavior: the internal_name/display_name divergence on Blueprint enums, the concrete example ('Snowy' vs 'NewEnumerator5'), the _MAX sentinel exclusion, and the fact that only the internal name is accepted by downstream writes. That is high-value context beyond the annotations.

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, the WARNING is placed prominently before the returns, and the terminal Returns block is compact. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct, load-bearing information.

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 supplies the return shape itself ({enum_name, enum_path, is_user_defined, values:[...]}) and flags the one pitfall an agent would otherwise hit. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret the result 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 both enum_name and the enum_path alias, including the FindFirstObject resolution and the no-asset-path constraint. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail 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 — reading an enum's definition — and scopes it precisely to native or Blueprint (UUserDefinedEnum) enums, enumerating exactly what is returned (every entry with index, internal_name, display_name, value). An agent can distinguish this from sibling list_enums/create_enum/add_enum_entry 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 prescribes when to use it: 'Read it here before writing an enum, or the write imports nothing', and names the consuming tools (set_property_value / set_component_property / call_function's enum-by-name marshaling). This is when/when-not guidance tied to concrete alternatives, not inference.

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