bt_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only wrapper', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also adds context about 'proving what changed and keeping AI state readable', which is useful. It does not describe return format or potential errors, but for a read-only inspection tool, this is adequate.

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 and concise: a one-line purpose, a usage context paragraph, a clear Args section, a KB reference, and an example. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting is ideal for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has a simple single-parameter interface and an output schema (as indicated by 'has output schema: true'), so the description does not need to explain return values. The example usage and KB pointer provide sufficient context for correct invocation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 provides no description for the parameter (schema coverage 0%), but the description explicitly explains 'behavior_tree_name: Name of the BT asset to inspect'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation and gives the agent precise meaning.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('Behavior Tree graph'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_bt_graph_info', which might have overlapping functionality, but the action is unambiguous on its own.

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 concrete usage context: 'discovery-before-mutation flows' and explains when to call it (before and after changing BT structure or Blackboard assignment). However, it does not mention any alternative tools or exclusions, so the guidance is clear but not comparative.

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