ue_bt_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It discloses the recursive nature and the included content types, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any prerequisites, error conditions, or output format. The term 'dump' hints at a read operation, but explicit transparency is lacking.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and content. It is front-loaded with the action ('Dump ricorsivo') and specifies the resource and relevant details without any filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the core action but misses essential details. It does not clarify the expected format of 'bt_path' or the structure of the returned dump (e.g., string, JSON, hierarchy layout). An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly and interpret the result, especially in the absence of annotations or an output schema.

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 one parameter 'bt_path' with no description (0% schema description coverage), and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. This leaves the expected path format ambiguous—whether it is an asset path, file path, or something else—forcing the agent to guess. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, making this a critical deficiency.

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 tool performs a recursive dump of a Behavior Tree's hierarchy, explicitly listing nodes, decorators, service, and path. This establishes a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like ue_bt_add_node or ue_bt_add_decorator. It is unambiguous that this is an info/read operation.

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 usage for inspecting a Behavior Tree structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools include other BT operations, but there is no direct guidance on scenarios where ue_bt_info would be preferred or not, leaving usage inferred rather than explicit.

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