inspect_blueprint

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

Read operation is clear, but with no annotations, description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose error handling (e.g., invalid path), permissions, or if operation is safe for concurrent use. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence conveys precise scope with no redundancy. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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, description lists all return categories, which is helpful. However, it lacks detail on the format or structure of each item (e.g., variables list, compile status enum). Slightly incomplete for a tool with one parameter.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds context about what the tool returns but doesn't elaborate on parameter format or constraints beyond schema. Baseline 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Read' and lists concrete resources: parent class, declared variables, function/event graph names, compile status. Clearly distinguishes from sibling inspect tools (e.g., inspect_asset, inspect_anim_blueprint) by detailing exactly what it returns.

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?

Description implies use when needing Blueprint internals, but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar tools like inspect_asset or audit_blueprint_compile_status. No exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned.

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