add_line_trace_for_objects_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the key behavior well: filters by object type, lists valid object types, and states 'Returns first hit matching an object type.' However, it does not disclose mutation side effects on the blueprint graph, compile behavior, or failure conditions, which matters for a graph-modifying 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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses scannable sections for parameters, knowledge base reference, and an example. Every line adds value and none restate schema information.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the essential call contract: parameters, object type domain, optionality, and an example. The output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. Minor omissions like whether object_types is optional and what happens when nothing is hit keep this from a 5.

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 fully compensates. It documents each parameter: blueprint_name, object_types with the accepted object type list, draw_debug with the four allowed values, and node_position as an optional [X, Y] coordinate. This is exactly the semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a Line Trace For Objects node', and immediately distinguishes it from the channel-based alternative by saying it 'filters by Object Type instead of channel.' This makes its purpose unmistakable even among many trace-node siblings.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when ray tracing should filter by object type rather than trace channel. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like add_line_trace_by_channel_node, but the 'instead of channel' contrast provides enough routing guidance for an agent.

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