get_blueprint_variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it conveys that this is a non-mutating inspection operation through 'List' and 'inspect,' and it details the category-filter and return structure. It does not mention error behavior or access requirements, but those are minor omissions for a read-only listing 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organizes Args, Returns, KB pointer, and Example into scannable sections with no filler. The length is justified because each section provides information needed to call the tool correctly.

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 two-parameter read-only query, the description covers what it does, when to use it, both parameters, the return shape, and a concrete example, plus a knowledge-base reference. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing the schema or annotations.

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 Args section adds meaning the schema lacks: category is described as an optional filter where empty string returns all results, and blueprint_name is given with an example. The only weakness is the format ambiguity between the short asset-name example ('BP_MyCharacter') and the path-style example ('/Game/MCP_Test/BP_Example').

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 member variables defined in a Blueprint class') and enumerates the fields returned, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_blueprint_nodes or add_blueprint_variable.

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 sentence 'Use this to inspect existing variables before adding new ones' gives a concrete workflow trigger and implies a read-only pre-mutation check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of a full 5.

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