add_get_variable_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation reads a variable (suggesting non-destructive behavior), returns a dict with 'node_id', and names the output pin. It also notes the variable must exist. However, it does not explain what happens on failure, whether a node is created in a specific graph, or any side effects on the blueprint graph. Moderate transparency.

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 for Args, Returns, KB, and an Example. It is concise, with no filler, and every part serves a purpose. The Args section does repeat schema information, but since the schema has no descriptions, it is necessary. It could be slightly tighter, but overall it earns high marks for clarity.

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 the action, parameters, return value, and includes an example and KB reference. However, it omits important operational context such as which graph the node is added to, how the node is located after creation, and error behavior when the variable doesn't exist. Given an output schema existsached (though not shown), the return description is adequate, but the missing graph context leaves a notable gap.

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 must compensate. It provides a concise explanation for each parameter: blueprint_name, variable_name (with the constraint 'must exist'), and node_position (explicitly optional with '[X, Y]' hint). This goes beyond the schema's raw types and is sufficient for basic usage, though it could add more detail on node_position format or defaults.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a 'Get [VariableName]' node to read a variable's value.' It also specifies the return type and output pin, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'add_blueprint_variable_get_node', which may appear to serve a nearly identical role, so it doesn't earn 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_blueprint_variable_get_node or other node-adding tools. The description mentions a prerequisite (variable must exist) and provides an example, but that implies usage rather than explicitly stating selection criteria, exclusions, or alternatives.

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