unreal_blueprint_compile_receipt

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: receipts expire after 15 minutes, persistence across MCP reconnects, and diagnostics may contain private project text. It also reinforces the no-retry behavior, making side effects and constraints clear.

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?

Three tight sentences deliver the core purpose, an explicit negative instruction, a retention constraint, and a privacy warning with no filler. The most important usage constraint 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers retention, privacy, and the no-retry rule, but it could be more complete by explaining how to obtain a valid plan_id, such as from a compile preview or compile call.

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 required plan_id with 0% description coverage, and the description only indirectly explains it as identifying an existing compile plan/result or receipt. It does not specify where plan_id comes from, its format, or how it relates to the sibling compile tools, so the agent must infer part of the parameter's meaning.

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 action ('Read an existing compile plan/result') on a clear resource, and the directive 'never retry compilation' explicitly separates it from the sibling compile tools like unreal_blueprint_compile. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool does.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for reading an existing compile result, not for triggering compilation, and it explicitly warns against retrying compilation. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the exclusion is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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