get_blueprint_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return structure, component source values ('SCS' or 'NativeC++'), class names, and optional modified_properties. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and no side effects or contradictions are present.

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 purpose, args, returns, a KB link, and an example. Every section adds useful detail, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly detailed but not bloated.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, parameter meaning, return shape, and an example. However, it does not explain failure behavior, blueprint path conventions beyond the example, or when to prefer this over get_scs_nodes, so it is not fully complete.

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%, but the description compensates with an 'Args' section defining blueprint_name as 'Asset name of the Blueprint' and provides a concrete example path. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's bare title 'Blueprint Name'.

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: 'List all components of a Blueprint (SCS + native C++ components).' It clarifies the scope of the tool and distinguishes it implicitly from similar siblings like get_scs_nodes and get_blueprint_functions, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_scs_nodes or get_blueprint_functions. The description explains what the tool does, but not when an agent should select it over alternatives or when it should not be used.

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