bp_scan_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the plugin requirement, the scope of inspection ('all graphs'), and the filtering behavior of audio_only, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it mutates state, or what permissions are needed, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses a structured Args block for parameter details. It is appropriately sized and avoids redundancy, though the opening sentence could be slightly tighter. Overall, every section earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Given the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description adequately covers parameters and key behavioral context (plugin requirement, scope, audio filtering). The main missing piece is explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, which is already reflected in the usage_guidelines score.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It gives an example path for asset_path and explains that audio_only restricts output to audio-relevant nodes and include_pins adds full pin details per node. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Deep-scan a Blueprint asset to extract graph nodes, function calls, and audio relevance.' It goes further by detailing what is inspected (all graphs, macros) and what is detected (audio-relevant nodes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this deep scan from siblings like bp_search or bp_node_info, which likely cover related but narrower inspection tasks.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bp_search, bp_node_info, or bp_list_categories. It only notes a runtime prerequisite ('Requires the UE5 C++ plugin to be running'), which is a condition, not a routing rule. An agent must infer usage from the tool's purpose alone.

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