bp_get_graph_detail

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses pagination semantics, the output data dictionary, top-level meta fields, token estimation, and the token savings of include_pin_defaults=False. This gives an agent an accurate model of what the tool does and what to expect back.

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 long but tightly organized: purpose, usage guidance, output shape, args, example, and KB pointer. It is front-loaded and every section earns its place, especially the token-budget example and pagination explanation, which are both actionable and non-obvious.

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 paginated detail tool with five parameters and no schema parameter documentation, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly. It includes required params, optional params with defaults, output structure, token behavior, and a live invocation example, leaving no material gap.

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%, but the description compensates fully. It explains blueprint_path accepts either a full package path or bare name, gives examples for graph_name, defines page as 0-based, limits page_size to 1–200, and quantifies include_pin_defaults behavior. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 pair: 'Return full paginated node detail for a single Blueprint graph.' It also distinguishes itself from bp_get_graph_summary by calling itself the 'precision tool for large graphs,' so an agent can tell which sibling to select without additional inference.

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 explicitly states when to prefer this tool: 'use instead of bp_get_graph_summary when a graph has many nodes or when include_pin_defaults=False is needed for token budget.' It also gives a concrete token-budget example, so selection is not left to guesswork.

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