ue_pcg_graph_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only inspection by stating 'prima di collegarli', but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, prerequisites, or required asset state. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, with the first listing output contents and the second offering a practical use case. It is compact and front-loaded, though the first sentence is slightly dense with parentheses.

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 description enumerates the returned data (nodes with name, settings class, pin, position; and edges) and provides a concrete workflow context. It lacks details on graph_path format or error behavior, but for a simple info query with one parameter, it covers the essential aspects.

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 graph_path parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description does not explain its expected format (e.g., asset path, object path, or full path). It only implies it refers to a PCG graph, which is already evident from the tool name.

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 it returns nodes (name, settings class, pin, position) and edges of a PCG graph, using a specific verb+resource pattern. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_bp_graph_info, which targets Blueprint graphs.

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 second sentence explicitly indicates the use case: knowing pin names before connecting them, aligning with tools like ue_pcg_connect. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but provides clear context for when to use.

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