add_get_game_mode_node

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It explains that the node returns the current GameMode and advises casting to a custom class, which adds meaningful context. It does not mention side effects on the blueprint, error conditions, or the existing output schema, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 compact and structured with Args, KB, and Example; every line earns its place. The 'Ch.3:' prefix is cryptic and unexplained, which slightly reduces clarity, but overall there is no wasted text.

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?

With only two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the required usage knowledge: arg semantics, optionality, and a full example. It omits error cases and explicit mention of the output schema, but for a simple node-insertion tool this is adequately complete.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It documents both parameters ('blueprint_name: Blueprint name', 'node_position: Optional [X, Y] graph position') and provides a concrete example path, which compensates for the missing schema descriptions. It could add path format validation details but is otherwise sufficient.

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 specific action ('Add a 'Get Game Mode' node') and clarifies the node's runtime behavior ('Returns the current GameMode'), with a concrete example call. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling add-node tools like add_get_player_character_node, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the action and example, and the optional/required args give invocation context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over other getter-node tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the blueprint needing to exist or be open.

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