inspect_widget_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as reading structural properties, implying read-only. It mentions 'C++ handler; no new Build.cs deps', offering insight into implementation safety. It does not disclose error conditions or performance but is sufficiently transparent.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists specifics. It is efficient but slightly long due to enumeration. Could be broken into shorter sentences, but overall concise.

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 complexity of widget blueprint properties and no output schema, the description lists many specific properties (animations, delegate bindings, etc.) making it fairly complete. It lacks mention of return format or pagination but covers essential aspects.

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 is 100% with one parameter 'path' described as 'UE asset path...'. The description adds context about asset type but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score applies due to high schema coverage.

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 it 'reads UWidgetBlueprint-specific structural properties' and lists specific items like parent class, compile status, etc. It distinguishes from siblings 'inspect_blueprint' and 'inspect_widget_tree' by noting what each handles.

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?

It explicitly states it 'complements inspect_blueprint and inspect_widget_tree' and suggests cross-linking via shared asset path, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, no explicit 'when not to use' is given.

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