perception_describe_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Describe' implies a read-only operation, but this is never stated explicitly. The description also does not mention side effects, required asset state, error behavior, or any guarantees about what happens if the blueprint doesn't exist.

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 main clause is front-loaded and clear, followed by a KB pointer and a concrete example. No filler words. The KB line is slightly vague about how the agent should use it, but the overall structure is tight and efficient, stopping just short of perfect.

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?

Having an output schema means return-value details are not needed in the description. However, with no annotations, the tool's read-only nature and when-to-use conditions remain underspecified, and the description does not clarify error behavior or whether the blueprint must be loaded. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient but clearly has gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The example call, blueprint_name='/Game/MCP_Test/BP_Example', clarifies that the parameter expects a full asset path with a /Game/ prefix, adding practical meaning beyond the bare schema property title. It doesn't explicitly state the path rule, but the example is strong enough.

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 states a specific verb ('Describe') and a specific resource ('AI Perception and stimuli source components on a Blueprint'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like perception_add_component or perception_configure_sight, which modify rather than inspect. However, 'describe' remains somewhat open-ended about what aspects are covered, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The KB reference hints at context but never tells an agent under what circumstances to select this tool over perception_configure_sight, get_blueprint_components, or other introspective tools.

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