project_find_blueprint_by_parent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explains that the tool searches the Asset Registry, filters by the ParentClass tag, accepts both full paths and bare class names, supports recursive search, and returns a JSON StructuredResult with a specific shape.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence, a brief mechanism explanation, and then compactly structured Args/Returns/Example sections. Every line adds useful information without redundancy.

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 three-parameter read-only finder tool, the description covers the search behavior, match semantics, parameter meanings, defaults, return shape, and a concrete example. Even without annotations, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description compensates fully. It explains parent_class with examples, defines recursive by describing the /Game sub-path behavior and its default, and clarifies limit as the maximum number of returned assets with its default.

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: 'Find all Blueprints that derive from a given parent class.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling asset-finding tools by emphasizing the parent-class filter and the Asset Registry search strategy.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a parent class is the search criterion. It does not explicitly tell the agent when not to use it or name alternatives such as project_find_assets or ue_find_assets_by_class, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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