get_metasound_graph_info

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-open-world read, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds useful scope detail by specifying it reads the RootGraph default page only (not all pages), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but omits failure modes for invalid paths.

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 and return shape are front-loaded, and the Returns block is useful because no output schema exists. However, the truncated fragment '"/Game/MetaSounds/MS_Example" or fully-qualified ".MS_Example").' is a broken sentence that hurts readability and structure.

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, listing the returned fields (counts, inputs/outputs with names and types) is the right call and makes the definition largely complete for a simple read tool. Gaps remain in sibling differentiation and the corrupted path-format sentence.

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 single parameter is already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description's path-format hint ('/Game/MetaSounds/MS_Example' or '.MS_Example') is genuinely additive, but it is mangled into a stray parenthetical fragment rather than a clean statement.

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 ('Reads') and resource (the MetaSound Source document graph) and enumerates what is extracted (node/connection counts and declared interface I/O). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbors like get_metasound_info or list_meta_sound_nodes, so an agent cannot tell which graph-inspection tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative tool. The description only explains what is read, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context entirely.

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