add_get_all_variants_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array of Variant objects and that it adds a node to a blueprint. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether it modifies existing nodes, any preconditions like the blueprint must exist, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a modest disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 structured with a main statement, a usage note, a return explanation, an Args section, a KB reference, and an example. It is moderately long but each section contributes value. The organization aids scanning, and the example is helpful. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is sound.

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?

For a node-adding tool with four parameters, the description covers the purpose, parameter meanings, a usage example, and a reference to knowledge base documentation. It also mentions the return type. Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to detail the return structure further. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by listing each parameter (blueprint_name, lvs_variable, variant_set_name, node_position) with a brief purpose. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, even though it lacks type hints or default explanations (which are in the schema itself).

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Add a GetVariants node to get all variants in a Variant Set.' It also provides a concrete use case from a chapter, which clarifies the intent. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_get_variant_sets_node, but the action is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 gives a usage context ('Used in BP_Configurator to iterate over all variants and generate UI buttons dynamically') which implies when it might be appropriate. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool versus others. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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