lint_blueprint_graph

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

While annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context beyond them: it discloses the default scan scope (all ubergraph, function, and macro graphs; interface-override graphs excluded unless named), a deliberate honesty limit (it never flags merely unconnected exec outputs, so findings:[] is not a clean bill of health), and explains the returned findings structure. This is rich behavioral disclosure not present in structured fields.

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 front-loaded with purpose and organizes information logically (purpose, bug definitions, default scope, honesty limit, returns). Every sentence provides useful detail, though the bug-definition and honesty-limit passages are lengthy and could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 complex lint tool with three parameters, no output schema, and four distinct bug rules, the description is complete: it covers purpose, default scope, a critical honesty limit, and the shape of the return value. The only minor omission is clarification that a blueprint identifier should be supplied, but the schema does not mark it required either, so the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already documents graph_name's default scan behavior and the blueprint_name/blueprint_path alias relationship. The description largely repeats these details (e.g., 'Scans ALL ubergraph + function + macro graphs by default') without adding new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies 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?

The description states a specific verb (lint) and resource (a Blueprint's graphs), then enumerates the four bug kinds it detects and explicitly distinguishes its scope from compile-time checks: bugs that 'COMPILE CLEAN and only show up in play'. An agent can immediately tell this apart from sibling tools like check_blueprint_errors or validate_blueprint.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use it (finding four specific play-only authoring bugs) and names alternative tools (get_graph_nodes with compact=false, get_node_pin_info) for checking a related but unflagged condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other blueprint validation siblings or provide when-not exclusions.

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