ue5_read_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads connection topology, which is a read operation, but doesn't mention any side effects, performance implications, or error conditions. The description is terse and lacks detail about what happens if the blueprint is not found or the graph is invalid.

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 very concise, with a single clear sentence and a bilingual repetition. The key purpose and usage hint are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. No wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (read-only topology inspection with optional graph filtering), the description provides the essential purpose and usage context. However, with no output schema or annotations, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., list of connections, structured JSON), which could help agents understand what to expect. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (bp_path and graph_name). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but it implicitly indicates the tool focuses on connections, which helps understand parameter relevance. However, it doesn't elaborate on graph_name semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'Blueprint connection topology', specifying what is read (which pin connects to which node/pin). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ue5_read_nodes (which reads nodes) and ue5_connect_pins (which modifies connections), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use to verify wiring before and after edits.' This provides clear context for the tool's purpose, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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