bp_get_compile_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool may compile the Blueprint or reuse existing status, that results are structured rather than raw strings, and that each diagnostic item has a defined set of fields. It does not mention potential side effects of compilation, but the compile trigger is explicitly stated.

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 the core purpose, then uses compact structured sections for diagnostic fields, arguments, returns, KB reference, and a real example. There is no fluff or repetition; each section earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it documents input formats and defaults, explains the structured result shape, discloses the compile/read behavior, and provides an example call. The KB pointer adds further context without bloating the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully does: blueprint_path is documented with both full-path and plain-name examples, include_warnings and include_info are explained with defaults. This adds meaning beyond the bare boolean/string schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get compiler-derived diagnostics for a Blueprint in structured format.' It also distinguishes itself from raw-string compilation tools by emphasizing 'NOT just a raw string,' and the sibling list includes mat_get_compile_diagnostics, so the 'for a Blueprint' scope helps an agent pick the correct variant.

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 description gives clear context on what the tool does and how it behaves: it compiles or reads existing compile status and returns structured diagnostics. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use it or name alternatives such as compile_blueprint, but the read-oriented intent and structured-result emphasis make selection fairly unambiguous.

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