session_find_blueprint_flow

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates a blueprint by adding a node and wiring GetPlayerController(0), but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the existing graph is modified, whether save or compile occurs, or what the output represents. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 compact: two short sentences plus a KB reference and a concrete example. There is no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It could include more detail, but what is present earns its place.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter effects, node placement, graph mutation scope, or relationship to existing blueprints. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the missing operational context is substantial.

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%, and the description only supplies an example for blueprint_name. The remaining six parameters (save, compile, use_lan, max_results, use_lobbies, node_position) are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and effect.

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 action: 'Add a Find Sessions async Blueprint node and wire GetPlayerController(0).' This gives a clear verb and resource, and the example makes the target blueprint obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling session_create_blueprint_flow, but the operation is concrete enough to be understood.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The imperative phrasing and example imply a usage pattern, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. It does not mention related session tools such as session_create_blueprint_flow.

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