bp_node_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data-source preference and fallback ('prefers scraped data, falls back to curated'), which tells the agent results may vary in richness. However it omits whether the call is read-only/safe, what happens if the node_name is not found, and any error or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by the data-source behavior and a clearly labeled args section. No filler sentences, though the docstring-style Args block is slightly more verbose than necessary for a single parameter.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, data source, and the single parameter with examples. With no annotations it leaves safety/error behavior implicit, but for a read-style info lookup that gap is minor.

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 0% and there is one required parameter, so the description is the only place semantics could be added. It does specify the parameter must be an exact node name and gives concrete examples ('PlaySound2D', 'SpawnSoundAtLocation'), which is genuine value over the bare schema — but it stops short of format details like case sensitivity or namespace.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full Blueprint node info including pin specs.' An agent can tell this retrieves metadata about a Blueprint node. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like bp_list_node_pins or ms_node_info, which limits it below a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied — call it to inspect a node — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance despite many related Blueprint node tools (bp_list_node_pins, ms_node_info, bp_search). The data-source fallback note hints at behavior but does not route the agent between tools.

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