ue5_read_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explicitly discloses the read-only/safe behavior, states that it returns structured JSON, and explains the L1/L2/full behavioral distinction. It still leaves some gaps such as error behavior and exact return structure, but it is far above the minimal bar.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose and level semantics in the first sentence. The bilingual suffix adds useful localization but partially duplicates the English text, and the CLI-reader mention is slightly tangential, so it is not perfectly lean.

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?

The description captures the essential purpose, level semantics, safety, and output type, which is adequate for a basic read operation. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify the shape of the structured JSON, error behavior, or how this relates to the sibling read tools, leaving a meaningful completeness gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the level parameter maps to content (L1 = class info + variables + CDO, L2 = node graph + connections), which clarifies the relationship between level, include_cdo, and include_connections beyond the schema descriptions alone.

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 the tool reads a Blueprint asset and defines meaningful read levels (L1 class info/variables/CDO, L2 node graph/connections, full). It is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like ue5_read_nodes or ue5_read_connections, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context by saying it is read-only and safe to call any time, and the L1/L2/full distinctions imply when each level is useful. However, it does not provide guidance on when to prefer this tool over the dedicated ue5_read_nodes, ue5_read_connections, or other read tools, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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