check_blueprint_generated_class

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

There are no annotations, so description must carry the full burden. The description states it verifies and reports data, but does not disclose potential side effects (though likely read-only), performance implications, or dependency on compilation state. However, it does hint at reading and verification, but no explicit statement of non-destructiveness or read-only behavior.

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 two sentences and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, the example is immediately helpful, and there is no fluff. The KB reference is concise and does not detract.

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 is simple with one parameter and has an output schema (which is not shown but could describe return values). The description is adequate for a basic verification tool, but lacks details on what constitutes a 'valid' generated class or how to handle failures. Given its simplicity, it is borderline complete, but could be improved with note on error conditions.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides a concrete example ('/Game/MCP_Test/BP_Example') that illustrates the expected format for the single parameter, which is beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. The description also implies the parameter is a path or name, adding semantic clarity.

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 the tool's action ('Verify that a Blueprint asset has a valid generated class') and its resource (a Blueprint asset), and mentions what it reports ('parent/native class data'). It is specific with verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'compile_blueprint' or 'get_blueprint_nodes'.

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 basic example of usage with a parameter, but does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over alternatives. It implies it's for verification and inspection, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer it over similar inspection tools like 'get_blueprint_nodes' or 'inspect_static_mesh_sections'. Also, no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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