list_anim_state_machines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: that the query does not compile the blueprint and that nested machines are deliberately omitted, both of which affect what the agent can conclude from an empty result.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and information-dense. The trailing "Returns: { count, state_machines: [{name, graph_name}] }" repeats the return shape already stated mid-sentence, which is mild redundancy, though it does not obscure anything.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the return shape and the top-level-only constraint. Combined with 100% schema coverage for inputs and full annotation coverage for safety, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the sibling-routing guidance 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% and both parameters are documented there, including the blueprint_name alias relationship, so the schema carries the load. The description says nothing about parameters at all, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource (list state machine nodes of an Animation Blueprint) with an explicit scope qualifier: top level of every function graph, AnimGraph included, nested machines excluded, no compilation. That scope statement does a lot of disambiguation work, but it never names a sibling such as get_anim_state_machine_info to route the agent explicitly.

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 the read-only inspection use case and rules out nested machines, which is useful scoping. However, it gives no when-to-use statement and no alternative named for the adjacent cases (get_anim_state_machine_info for a single machine, validate_anim_state_machine for checks), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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