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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate those. It adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that calling the tool logs the clueprint as 'used' (fire-and-forget) for the recents list, and that binary files return presigned URLs. This excellent additional detail earns a high score; a 5 would require even more coverage, such as explicit mention of rate limits or size limits on responses.

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 well-structured with clear sections for each include mode, uses bullet points for readability, and front-loads the key verb. Every sentence provides direct value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields. The bonus detail about usage logging is a single, concise sentence at the end.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, 1 enum) and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining return formats (metadata vs. tree vs. files with presigned URLs). It covers side effects (usage logging) and best practices for large clueprints. However, it lacks details on pagination or limits for very large clueprints, and the 'all' mode could use more caution about performance. A 5 would address these edge cases.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema for the 'include' parameter by explaining the effect and best practices for each enum value (e.g., 'metadata + the full file tree' and 'binary as presigned GET URLs'). For 'file_paths', it reinforces the dependency on include='files'. This is useful enrichment, earning a 4; a 5 would require adding similarly rich context for all parameters, which is already done well but not exhaustive for 'clueprint_id'.

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 fetches clueprint data and uses a specific verb ('Fetch') along with the resource ('clueprint data'). It thoroughly distinguishes the various include modes, making it very clear what each call returns, which differentiates it from siblings like 'create_clueprint' or 'update_clueprint'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each include mode, e.g., 'Call include="tree" first when exploring an unfamiliar clueprint' and 'use sparingly on large clueprints' for 'all'. It tells the agent exactly how to decide between modes, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the guidance is so clear that exclusions are implied. No alternative sibling tool is named for similar operations, but the tool itself covers many use cases.

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