add_blueprint_variable_get_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool adds a node (implying mutation) and returns a dict with specific fields. It also explains target_class usage for cast pawn scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist) or potential side effects beyond the addition, and it does not disclose any limitations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, KB, Example). It is concise yet complete, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing parameters. The example provides a practical usage pattern. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers all parameters, provides an example, and references a KB document. It mentions the return structure (node_id, node_name, pins). However, it does not explicitly state that the blueprint must already exist or that the graph will be modified, which are key for an agent deciding to use this tool. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is mostly complete but missing a few contextual prerequisites.

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?

The description explains all five parameters in the Args section, including defaults and optionality. It adds meaning beyond the schema (e.g., graph_name default 'EventGraph', node_position optional, target_class usage for cast pawns). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clarifying each parameter's purpose and default behavior.

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 clearly states the action: 'Add a Get Variable node for a Blueprint variable.' It specifies the resource (Blueprint variable) and the operation (add node). The Args section further clarifies each parameter. While there are many sibling add_blueprint_* tools, this one is specifically for variable get nodes, and the description is unambiguous.

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 provides some usage context (e.g., target_class for cast pawn, default graph_name) but does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool over similar siblings like add_get_variable_node or add_set_variable_node. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the right scenario.

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