blueprint-modular

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the rich return data (description, props, examples, semantic layer) and acceptable parameter formats, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single paragraph that contains all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points for readability, but it remains clear.

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 absence of output schema, the description compensates by listing the types of information returned (description, props, examples, semantic layer). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output, though it omits potential error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds specific guidance on acceptable parameter values (e.g., 'bpm.metric' or 'metric'), which is not in the schema. This clarifies input format beyond what the schema definition offers.

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 ('retourne') and resource ('détail complet d'un composant'), listing specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is to be used after 'list/search' to get full detail.

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 states when to use: after 'list/search' and before generating code. This provides clear context and differentiates from sibling tools like list_components and search_components.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds pagination behavior (cursor-based, nextCursor) and lists categories, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and usage, with no extraneous information. Bold key terms enhance readability.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, pagination, categories, and return value (name+description). No critical gaps given the tool's simplicity and optional parameters.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal additional semantics beyond referencing cursor and category, but it reinforces pagination and category filtering context.

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 it lists components of the Blueprint Modular design system with name and description, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_component (single item) and search_components (search).

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 says 'À UTILISER pour parcourir le catalogue ou découvrir ce qui existe dans une catégorie donnée', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tool names imply alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying sorting by relevance and cursor-based pagination. It does not contradict annotations. It could mention other traits like no side effects, but given annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second provides usage guidance and pagination detail. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with key information.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and existing sibling tools, the description covers the essential behavior (search, relevance, pagination). However, it does not describe the return format or fields of each component in the results. While paginated by cursor is mentioned, an agent might need to know what fields are returned to use the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains cursor is for pagination and query is natural language terms. It also mentions sorting by relevance, which is not in the schema. Baseline 3 is increased due to these additions.

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 specifies the tool's verb ('Recherche'), resource ('composants'), and scope (free text on name, description, category, tags, sorted by relevance). Examples like 'tableau triable', 'graphique' provide concrete usage. It effectively distinguishes from siblings: get_component (single), list_components (list all), suggest_composition (composition).

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 this tool: 'À UTILISER quand on cherche un composant par fonction ou mot-clé'. It provides context and a clear use case. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the presence of sibling tools (get_component, list_components) implies alternatives, though not directly stated.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by explaining the reasoning on the semantic layer and that each suggestion includes meaning and pairWith. No contradiction.

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 purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should cover return structure. It mentions meaning and pairWith but lacks details on limit behavior and default. Adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, satisfying the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'suggère' and resource 'liste de composants Blueprint Modular', and distinguishes from sibling tools (get, list, search) by focusing on natural language need and semantic reasoning.

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 says 'À UTILISER pour partir d'une intention d'écran', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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