get_scs_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains what the tool returns, including the semantics of supports_overlap_events (True for PrimitiveComponent subclasses) and why variable_guid matters (scoping a K2Node_ComponentBoundEvent to a specific component, not the whole actor). It doesn't mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a read-only list operation the disclosed behavior is substantial and accurate.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then return fields, usage guidance, args, returns, KB pointer, and example. Each section earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema-only 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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, the exact return shape, when to use it, the parameter format, an example, and a KB reference. Even though an output schema exists, the written Returns section makes the tool self-sufficient.

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 only names blueprint_name with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so with an Args section explaining 'Blueprint asset name (e.g. "BP_NPC")' plus a concrete example call with a full asset path. This adds meaningful usage guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every SimpleConstructionScript (SCS) component in a Blueprint'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also enumerates the exact returned fields, distinguishing it from generic component-listing siblings like get_blueprint_components.

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 explicitly says 'Use this BEFORE add_overlap_event or add_component_overlap_event' to obtain the required component_name and variable_guid. This directly routes the agent to the right context and identifies the relevant sibling tools for which this is a prerequisite.

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