net_describe_blueprint_replication

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' does convey a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is valuable, but it does not explicitly say the tool makes no modifications, nor does it mention error behavior or asset-loading requirements. The KB reference and example add modest context.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool inspects, the second gives a KB pointer, and the third provides a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The single parameter is illustrated with an example, and the KB reference provides deeper context. The main missing piece is guidance on when to prefer this over related replication inspection/debug tools, but the description is otherwise 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 0%, so the description must compensate for blueprint_name. It provides an example value showing the full asset path format, but it does not explicitly state that blueprint_name must be an asset path, whether a short name is accepted, or what happens if the blueprint is not found. The example helps but leaves some semantics implicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a precise resource ('Actor Blueprint's replication defaults') and enumerates the exact aspects inspected: replicated variables, RepNotify callbacks, replicated components, and RPC functions. This clearly differentiates it from the many net_* mutation tools in the sibling list.

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 implies this is the read/inspection counterpart to the net_set_* and net_configure_* tools, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. The intent is inferable from 'Inspect' and the listed replication features, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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