get_bt_graph_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates non-mutating behavior through 'Inspect' and 'current state,' and fully discloses the return contract: a dict with success, node_count, and nodes including class, instance, position, pins, and subnodes. It does not mention permission requirements or error behavior, but the read-only framing plus detailed return shape is strong for a simple inspection 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 and front-loaded, starting with the operation, then Args, Returns, KB reference, and Example. The Returns list is somewhat redundant given that an output schema exists, but it remains scannable and every section serves a clear purpose.

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 inspection tool, this is nearly complete: it names the parameter, explains the returned dict, links to relevant KB documentation, and gives a working example. The main omissions are error behavior and explicit differentiation from bt_get_info, which are minor given the output schema and simple read-only nature.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It says behavior_tree_name is the 'Name of the BT asset to inspect' and provides a concrete example, which is useful. However, it does not specify whether a full asset path, short asset name, or display label is expected, leaving the single parameter somewhat ambiguous.

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: 'Inspect the current state of a Behavior Tree graph.' It then details exactly what is returned, including every node's type, position, instance class, pins, and sub-nodes. This clearly distinguishes it as a read/verification tool from mutation siblings like build_behavior_tree and add_bt_node.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this to verify build_behavior_tree or add_bt_node worked correctly.' This tells an agent when to call it after graph mutations. It does not name alternative read tools such as bt_get_info or state when not to use it, so the context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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