get_abp_graphs

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 only says 'List,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention return format, potential errors, or any other runtime behavior. This is minimal and leaves the agent without insights beyond the primary action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action statement, followed by an Args section. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for a one-line purpose statement, though the brevity limits the amount of useful information conveyed.

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 simple list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what 'graphs' means in this context or what the output contains, and with many similar sibling tools, a bit more context would help avoid confusion. The presence of an output schema offsets some need to document return values, but the description alone is fairly sparse.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description simply repeats the parameter name with a terse 'Unreal asset path.' This adds small semantic value by clarifying that the path is Unreal-specific, but it does not specify the expected format or provide examples, offering only marginal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('animation graphs') within an AnimBlueprint, clearly conveying the core function. Although it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_abp_nodes or get_abp_state_machines, the resource type is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, use case context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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