ue_bp_list_palette

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: the palette follows the editor's language, contains thousands of entries, the substring search is case-insensitive, and filtering is the only practical way to find names. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic 'search' 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 concise: a two-sentence intro followed by a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean with the purpose front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant 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?

It covers the tool's purpose, the scale and language-dependence of the palette, and all parameter semantics. The only missing detail is the explicit return format, but the intended use with `ue_bp_add_node_by_name` implies the results are node names. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on return structure would improve completeness.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description's Args section defines all four parameters: blueprint_path (Blueprint of reference), graph_name (target graph), contains (case-insensitive substring), and limit (max number of results). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('Cerca' = search) and resource ('nodi aggiungibili a un grafo' = nodes addable to a graph), with a clear method (filtering by substring). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing the follow-up tool `ue_bp_add_node_by_name`, clarifying its role in the Blueprint node workflow.

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?

It explains when to use this tool: to find the exact node name for `ue_bp_add_node_by_name`, especially given that the full palette has thousands of entries and is language-dependent. This is a clear usage context, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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