ue5_search_blueprint_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 declares 'read-only' and discloses a real limitation: engine-library candidates return names plus owning class but empty pins because the pure-Python channel cannot read UFunction signatures. That is a genuine behavioral caveat an agent needs. It doesn't cover permissions, pagination/cap behavior (left to schema), or failure modes, keeping it below a 5.

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 English text is front-loaded and efficient: purpose, then workflow ordering, then the pin-signature caveat. The full Chinese mirror roughly doubles the token cost, which is intentional for bilingual coverage but is redundant for any single agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes return content (node candidates with pin signatures; engine candidates with class name and honestly empty pins). For a three-parameter read tool that is close to sufficient, though it could say more about how results are ordered or truncated.

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 100%, so bp_path, query, and limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that (e.g., it doesn't clarify query matching against node titles vs. class names), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search callable nodes in a Blueprint') and enumerates the node categories covered (events / function candidates / flow control / variables) plus what the results carry (full pin signatures). An agent can distinguish this from ue5_read_nodes or ue5_read_blueprint without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly directs usage: 'Use this BEFORE ue5_apply_blueprint_graph to get accurate targets and pin signatures for the GraphSpec,' naming the sibling and the ordering condition. It does not say when to prefer ue5_read_nodes or other read siblings instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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