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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and mentions filtering, but does not disclose output details, pagination, potential size limits, or any authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence about LLM filtering is somewhat vague and arguably redundant, but the overall length is appropriate and not verbose.

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 1-parameter list tool, it covers the basic purpose but omits explanation of the format parameter, specifics of 'details', and filtering mechanics. Sibling list tools are not mentioned, so context for selection is 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?

There is one optional 'format' parameter with a default but schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions this parameter or its possible values, so the agent cannot infer how to control the output format, creating a significant gap.

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?

Clear verb 'List' with resource 'available blueprints' and scope 'all', immediately conveying the tool's primary function. It distinguishes from stack creation and validation siblings, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list sibling tools like CYCLOID_CATALOG_REPO_LIST or CYCLOID_PIPELINE_LIST.

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?

Implies use when the user needs blueprint listings, and mentions the LLM can filter results based on user requirements. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling list tools, and no exclusion conditions.

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