ue_bp_list_graphs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action but does not disclose the output format, whether the Blueprint must be loaded/compiled, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 a single sentence with a clear purpose and an example. It is highly concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the short description is the only documentation. It covers the purpose and path format, yet misses return structure and usage context. This is adequate but leaves 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides a concrete example value for blueprint_path ('/Game/MyGame/BP_Player'), which communicates the expected Unreal asset path format. However, it does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning beyond that example.

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 the verb 'Elenca' (lists) with a specific resource: the graphs of a Blueprint, including examples (EventGraph, UserConstructionScript, functions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_bp_list_events, which lists events, and ue_bp_graph_info, which provides info on a single graph.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ue_bp_list_events or ue_bp_graph_info. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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