get_rigvm_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and mutability profile is fully covered externally. The description adds the return shape inline, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about error cases or whether the graph can be large.

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 tight lines with the action front-loaded and the return shape clearly delineated. Every token earns its place, though the phrasing 'nodes pins and links' is slightly run-together and could be punctuated for readability.

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 inline Returns clause correctly compensates by naming asset_path, nodes, node_count and link_count. Combined with a fully documented single parameter and read-only annotations, the definition is nearly complete; only usage guidance is absent.

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% with a single parameter (control_rig_path) already documented as the path to the UControlRigBlueprint asset. The description adds no syntax, format, or expected-value detail beyond the schema, 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 specific verb (Read) and resource (a Control Rig's RigVM solver graph nodes, pins and links), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_rig_hierarchy or get_rig_control_value. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or scope boundaries, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_rig_hierarchy or the add_rigvm_node/remove_rigvm_node tools. The read-only nature is implied only by the verb 'Read' and the annotations, so the agent gets no routing help.

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