search_blueprint_nodes

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

The description carries the full behavioral transparency burden since no annotations are present. The verb 'Find' implies a read-only search, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications, nor does it describe search traversal details (e.g., recursive or limited to top-level graph). It adds minimal context beyond the name.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Find') and includes helpful examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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 absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., list of matching nodes, their locations, or a count). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. The low complexity (2 parameters) is offset by this missing return-value information.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The examples for node_type in the description are also present in the parameter's own description. There is no extra meaning provided, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'specific node types within a Blueprint', with concrete examples (FunctionCall, Branch, ForLoop). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blueprint_functions (which retrieves functions) or search_assets (which searches broader asset content).

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: use when you need to locate particular node types inside a Blueprint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving differentiation to the agent's inference. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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