get_property_access_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it says the tool errors on non-K2Node_PropertyAccess nodes and explains the resolved/resolved_pin semantics, including that a still-wildcard Value pin means the path points at nothing.

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-loads the core action, then handles scope, error behavior, and the writer twin before the return shape. Dense with em-dashes but every clause carries information; mildly run-on yet no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return contract — and it does, enumerating node_id, graph_name, path, text_path, resolved, and resolved_pin, plus the meaning of resolved:false. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it 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 four parameters (including the blueprint_name/blueprint_path alias) are already documented in the schema. The description adds example path syntax (InAnimInstance.Foo) but no per-parameter guidance, so 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+resource: reading a UK2Node_PropertyAccess node's binding Path, and explicitly distinguishes it from the writer twin set_property_access_path. An agent can tell what it returns (path segments, text_path, resolved) without opening anything else.

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?

Clearly scopes the tool to K2Node_PropertyAccess nodes, notes it errors on any other node type, and names the alternative write tool. It hints this covers data 'no ordinary pin read exposes,' but does not explicitly contrast with pin-reading siblings like get_node_pin_info or get_anim_graph_node_properties.

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