add_get_forward_vector_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior of adding a node and returning a normalized vector, and adds a KB pointer. But it does not cover side effects like graph mutation, blueprint prerequisites, or error behavior, which would be useful for a node-adding mutation tool.

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: a front-loaded purpose sentence, behavior explanation, Args section, KB reference, and example. It is concise without stray fluff, though the 'Ch.14' and KB pointer add mild noise for someone just trying to invoke the tool.

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 low-complexity two-parameter node-add operation, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers behavior, parameter meaning, an example, and a KB reference. The presence of an output schema helps, and missing details like error handling or prerequisites are not critical for this straightforward add-node use case.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by listing both parameters, explaining node_position as 'Optional [X, Y] graph position,' and giving a full example with a blueprint path. The blueprint_name explanation is terse, but the example clarifies expected formatting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Get Actor Forward Vector node.' It also explains what the node does ('Returns normalized forward direction vector of the actor'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_get_up_vector_node and add_get_right_vector_node.

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?

It provides clear usage context by explaining the vector's purpose ('Multiply by speed to move in the actor's forward direction'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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