list_graph_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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the scope ('all nodes in a Blueprint's event graph') adds context, but the description does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, error handling, output format, or ordering. This is acceptable for a simple list but lacks depth.

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 one concise sentence of eight words, directly stating the tool's function. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant information, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward listing operation.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but omits information about the return value (e.g., what node data is included) and any prerequisites like requiring a valid Blueprint path. This could hinder an agent that needs to chain this with graph manipulation tools.

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 single parameter blueprint_path is already fully described in the schema as 'Blueprint asset path' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all nodes in a Blueprint's event graph. The verb 'List' and the resource 'nodes in a Blueprint's event graph' are specific and differentiate it from graph mutation tools like add_graph_node or remove_graph_node.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_blueprint_info or add_graph_node. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its role solely from the name and one-sentence description.

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