get_blueprint_graphs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the output shape (dict with 'graphs' list including graph_name, graph_type, node_count) and implies a read-only operation through 'List every graph.' It does not discuss error conditions, but none are essential for this inspection-style 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 well organized into purpose, args, returns, a KB reference, and an example. Every section adds practical value, the main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restating of 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what to pass, what the response contains, and a concrete example. An agent can select and invoke it correctly without needing additional context.

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 only 'type: string' for blueprint_name, so the description compensates by defining it as 'Asset name, e.g. ThePlayerCharacter' and offering a concrete call example with '/Game/MCP_Test/BP_Example'. There is minor ambiguity about whether a bare asset name or full path is expected, but the examples reduce the risk.

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 'List every graph inside a Blueprint' and enumerates EventGraph, function, macro, and delegate graphs, giving a specific verb and resource. It also names related tools (get_blueprint_nodes, add_blueprint_function_node), making the tool's role clear among many 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?

It explicitly directs the agent to 'Use this to discover graph names before calling get_blueprint_nodes or add_blueprint_function_node with a non-default graph_name.' This provides a clear trigger condition and context, though it does not name alternative listing tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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