get_blueprint_debug_info

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds two things they don't: the explicit 'does NOT recompile' guarantee (meaningful next to compile_blueprint/compile_blueprint-adjacent siblings) and the full debug_status/debug_level/debug_message/compilation_status output fields. It still doesn't explain cost, latency, or whether resolution failures are errors vs warnings, keeping it from a 5.

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 prose is two tight sentences with the read-only guarantee front-loaded, and the Returns block is long but justified because there is no output schema to carry the return contract. No sentence is pure filler, though the field list could be trimmed.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the non-recompilation guarantee and the complete return shape, which is exactly the gap a missing output schema would leave. It would only need usage guidance against sibling inspection tools to be fully complete.

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 the blueprint_path accepted forms and the blueprint_name alias behaviour. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Retrieve ... debug information about a blueprint') and enumerates the content categories (structure, metadata, complexity analysis), which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_blueprint_functions_list or get_blueprint_variables_list. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so it does not reach the explicit-routing bar of a 5.

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' clause implicitly tells the agent this is a safe inspection call rather than a build step, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against near-neighbours such as get_blueprint_info, audit_blueprint_health, or validate_blueprint. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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