get_sound_cue_graph

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's 'without changing it' is reinforcement rather than new information. It does add genuine behavioral detail beyond annotations by disclosing the sentinel semantics: child_ids '-1 for an empty slot' and first_node_id '-1 when unset', which an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 purpose and effect first, then enumerates node fields and the return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; the Returns block is justified because no output schema exists. Slightly list-heavy but no wasted 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 is provided, so the description must carry return semantics, and it does so with an explicit Returns block covering cue_path, asset_path, nodes, node_count, first_node_id and has_first_node. Combined with annotation coverage of the read-only profile, an agent has what it needs, missing only usage routing to siblings.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cue_path fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail for cue_path and never mentions it, 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 (node graph of a USoundCue) plus the exact contents returned: every node in AllNodes with id, class, child_ids, max_child_nodes and editable properties. An agent can distinguish it from the other sound cue tools (add_sound_cue_node, set_sound_cue_node_properties) without opening a schema.

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?

Description implies the workflow by noting the id is 'the node_id other sound cue tools take' and that it reads 'without changing it', which hints this is the inspection step before mutating nodes. However it never explicitly states when to use this instead of a sibling or what prerequisites exist, leaving the routing to inference.

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