ue_bp_graph_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data (nodes, pins, connections, errors/warnings) and that errors/warnings indicate compilation status, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, which is implied but not guaranteed.

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, front-loaded with the core information, and structured with a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining the first two sentences.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return content (nodes, pins, connections, errors/warnings) and the primary use case. It lacks details on output format, but for an informational tool with well-explained parameters, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It gives an example for blueprint_path and clarifies that graph_name is the object name rather than the translated title, and it directs users to ue_bp_list_graphs for valid values.

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 clearly states what the tool provides—nodes, pins, connections, and compilation errors of a Blueprint graph—though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets.' It distinguishes itself by positioning as the starting point for other tools, which separates it from sibling ue_bp_* tools.

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 'È il punto di partenza' (it's the starting point) and explains that it provides object names needed for all other tools, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It also references ue_bp_list_graphs for listing graphs, offering an alternative for that specific need.

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