check_blueprint_errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it does not recompile and returns cached status, warning the agent that results may be stale. That freshness caveat is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the key read-only caveat, then a structured return-shape listing. The return enumeration is long, but since no output schema exists it earns its place; the prose portion is tight.

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 no output schema, the explicit return field list (error_status, errors, warnings, counts, compilation_status, etc.) is genuinely load-bearing and complete. Combined with the read-only/cached framing and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling-disambiguation question remains open.

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%, and the schema itself explains the blueprint_path resolution semantics and the blueprint_name alias, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (blueprint) and enumerates the concern categories: compilation errors, warnings, structural issues, orphaned nodes. It implicitly separates itself from compile-type siblings by stressing cached status, but never names the very similar siblings (validate_blueprint, lint_blueprint_graph, audit_blueprint_health) that an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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 'does NOT recompile (reports the cached Status)' clause gives real context for when this is the right call versus a recompile, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the many blueprint-inspection siblings. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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