get_rig_hierarchy

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: traversal order is deterministic, nothing is compiled or saved, and the count breakdown including 'other' sockets/connectors is spelled out, which matters for a Blueprint asset that could otherwise be recompiled.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact Returns block; the operation and its output shape are front-loaded with no filler. There is mild redundancy, since the elements format is given once inline and again in the Returns line, but it is minor.

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 return contract, enumerating every field and the element record shape, plus the read-only guarantee. An agent can act on this without any other source.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself supplying the asset-path example ("/Game/Rigs/CR_Hero"). The description adds no further syntax or constraint on control_rig_path, so the 3 baseline 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 (read every element of a Control Rig Blueprint hierarchy) and pins down the shape of the result (elements of {name, type} plus per-category counts and a total). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_rigvm_graph, get_skeletal_mesh_info, or list_geometry_collection_bones.

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?

The description implies when the tool is useful (inspecting the full member list of a rig) but never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_rig_control_value or list_geometry_collection_bones, nor any prerequisite (e.g. the asset must exist or be loaded). Usage is inferable but not guided.

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