get_event_dispatchers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it reads from the SKELETON class so results reflect edits since the last full compile, and it distinguishes declared vs inherited dispatchers. It stops short of mentioning caching or cost, so not a perfect 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by data-source semantics, usage ordering, and constraints. With no output schema present, the compact Returns block is load-bearing rather than filler, and no sentence is redundant.

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?

For a read tool over Blueprint event dispatchers with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the data source/freshness, the usage ordering against consuming tools, and the declarability constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 all three parameters (including the blueprint_path alias and include_inherited default) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the inherited/declared distinction but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, 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 (list) and resource (a Blueprint's event dispatchers) plus what it returns (name, C++ type, is_output, is_inherited). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming add_broadcast_node, add_object_bound_event, and set_event_dispatcher_signature as the consumers of this data.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Use it before add_broadcast_node / add_object_bound_event / set_event_dispatcher_signature, whose pins mirror this signature') and an important precondition ('only the dispatchers this Blueprint DECLARES can have their signature edited'). An agent knows both when to call it and what it can then act on.

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