inspect_anim_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly ('Read structural properties'), mentions a null guard for compiled data, and notes no new dependencies. It is transparent about the tool's behavior, though could state 'read-only' explicitly.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key behaviors. Every sentence provides essential information without 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what properties are returned. It covers the compiled data guard and dependency info. It could mention error handling or return format, but for a one-parameter read-only tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 single parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema (UE asset path notation). The description adds little beyond that, only referencing the path in the context of the C++ handler. At 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Read structural properties of a UAnimBlueprint asset' and enumerates specific properties like parent class, target skeleton, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inspect_blueprint and inspect_anim_montage which handle other asset types.

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 implies usage for inspecting anim blueprint structural data but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives. It does mention a guard for uncompiled blueprints, which is helpful context.

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