ue5_read_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data returned and the all-graphs search behavior, but does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, nor does it mention permissions, error conditions, or performance. The word 'Read' implies safety, but the description could add more explicit behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a parameter hint and a usage tip. The bilingual translation is compact and adds no redundancy. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with only 2 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return fields (titles, positions, GUIDs, pin defaults) and the scoping behavior. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites, but the agent can call it correctly without further info. Adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the semantic of omitting graph_name (search all graphs), which goes beyond the schema's 'omit to search all graphs' by reinforcing it in the tool's core instruction. This extra guidance earns a 4.

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 ('Read') and resource ('Blueprint nodes'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: titles, positions, GUIDs and pin defaults. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like ue5_read_blueprint (whole blueprint) and ue5_read_connections (connections). No ambiguity remains.

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 a concrete use case: 'Use before connecting pins so you have the GUIDs,' and explains parameter behavior: 'Omit graph_name to search all graphs.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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