add_on_see_pawn_event

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

The description explains the underlying event behavior (fires when AI spots the player) and the intended wiring outcome, which adds context beyond a bare 'bind event' statement. However, it does not disclose what the tool does to the blueprint structure, whether prerequisites like an existing PawnSensing component are required, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but leaves these points implicit.

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 front-loaded with the tool's action, then adds a brief event explanation, an Args list, a KB reference, and a concrete example. Each section earns its place and the overall length is appropriate for a moderately complex tool. It is structured for quick skimming.

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 gives a useful example, a KB pointer, and enough explanation of the event and its wiring goal, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the PawnSensing component must already exist) and the precise scope of modifications to the blueprint. Given no annotations and a moderately complex mutation, this is a noticeable 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's Args section provides essential meaning for all three parameters. It defines blueprint_name as the Enemy Blueprint name, pawn_sensing_component as the component name, and node_position as an optional [X, Y] graph position, with an example showing a full asset path. This largely compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though format nuances are not fully specified.

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: 'Bind the On See Pawn event from a PawnSensing component.' It then explains when the event fires (AI spots the player in its sight cone) and its intended use, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_on_hear_noise_event. The example reinforces the straightforward purpose.

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 provides a clear use case: wire this to set the PlayerCharacter blackboard key and update chase state when the AI spots the player. It implies the tool is for sight-triggered AI reactions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is adequate context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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