ue_bp_list_events

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that 'is_implemented' indicates whether an event node already exists in the graph, which is useful output-related behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any side effects, though listing events strongly implies a non-destructive operation.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a brief clarification of the output field 'is_implemented', and a clear args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context by describing what events are listed and explaining a key part of the output. It could be more detailed about the full return structure, but the essential usage is clear.

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?

There is only one parameter, blueprint_path, and the schema provides just its type. The description adds a concrete example ('/Game/MyGame/BP_Player') and clarifies its purpose as the path to the Blueprint. This meaningfully supplements the 0% schema description coverage.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Elenca gli eventi visibili su un Blueprint' (Lists the visible events on a Blueprint), and explicitly enumerates the event types (custom, inherited overridable, interface). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_bp_list_graphs or ue_bp_add_custom_event.

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 implies use when needing to see a Blueprint's events, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ue_bp_list_graphs or ue_bp_add_event_override. It gives context but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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