get_blueprint_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. The word 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and the description mentions what information is returned, but it does not disclose potential limitations, error behavior, or whether the variable values are also returned.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without any waste. It earns its place and is easy to parse quickly.

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 a simple single-parameter listing tool, the description provides sufficient context: the operation, the resource, and the output details. It is slightly limited by the lack of an output schema and absence of any guidance on related tools, but the core information is complete enough for straightforward use.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter, 'blueprint_path', as 'Relative path to the Blueprint asset', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about path format, resolution, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all variables in a Blueprint') and specifies the scope (types, categories, properties). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_blueprint_functions, which lists functions rather than variables.

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 usage is implied by the description: it is for retrieving variable definitions from a Blueprint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as get_blueprint_functions, inspect_blueprint, or add_blueprint_variable.

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