interchange_get_node_container

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds procedural context (it loads the asset + ID, then iterates factory nodes and reads class/UniqueID/DisplayLabel), which is useful but stays at the implementation level rather than explaining anything an agent couldn't already infer about a read-only call.

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?

The description is medium-length and reasonably information-dense, but includes low-value C++ internals (header file names, 'template header-only', INTERCHANGECORE_API macros) that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The useful purpose is not clearly front-loaded ahead of that noise.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does provide an explicit return shape (asset_path, present, root_uids, factory_node_count, factory_nodes). Combined with the read-only annotations, that is nearly enough for correct invocation, though usage routing and the asset_path semantics remain thin.

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 baseline is 3. The single asset_path parameter is documented in the schema, and the description only loosely clarifies that it points at an asset carrying UInterchangeAssetImportData; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's example.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('UInterchangeBaseNodeContainer of an asset's UInterchangeAssetImportData'), so an agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling interchange_get_asset_import_data, which is the main gap.

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-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description never says why an agent would call this instead of interchange_get_asset_import_data or the other interchange_get_* tools, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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