unreal_blueprint_inspect

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior: no compile, no implicit asset load, no graph edit, limits are totals across graphs, truncation flags, stale compiler messages, and error handling for asset_not_loaded. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent actionable behavioral context.

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 three sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists exclusions and important warnings. The structure is logical and easy to parse, earning every sentence.

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?

For an inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, limits, staleness of diagnostics, and required preconditions (already-open). It also provides error handling guidance. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that node/pin limits are totals across graphs and mentions truncation flags, which helps interpret node_limit and pin_limit. It also implies asset_path refers to an already-open native Blueprint. However, it does not detail graph_limit or the exact format of limits, leaving some semantics under-specified.

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 reads an already-open native Blueprint and returns graph IDs, pins, variables, and diagnostics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like unreal_blueprint_compile and unreal_workflow_inspect by specifying 'no compile, implicit asset load or graph edit', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is for inspection only, not for compilation or modification. It implies when to use this tool (when the Blueprint is already open and you need diagnostics) and what to do if asset_not_loaded is returned. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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