get_blueprint_component_object_path

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the return shape including the 'source' enum values 'scs'|'inherited' and the note that object_path is GetPathName(). It stops short of documenting failure modes when a component cannot be resolved.

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-loads the purpose, then a compact return-value clause. Both sentences earn their place with no filler, and the downstream-tool guidance is placed where an agent reads it first.

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 present, the description compensates by spelling out the return object (object_path, class, source). Combined with high-coverage params and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to select and call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the blueprint_name/blueprint_path alias relationship and the SCS-vs-inherited resolution of component_name. The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Resolve) and resource (Blueprint component's TEMPLATE archetype) and its output (object path), then explains why: so get/set_property_value/call_function can target the component. It clearly distinguishes itself from the large sibling set by naming its downstream consumers.

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 'so get_property_value/set_property_value/call_function can target that component directly' clause gives clear context for when to reach for this tool in a workflow. It does not, however, name or exclude alternative sibling routes (e.g. get_blueprint_component_property, get_property_access_path), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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