List Blueprints

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the API endpoint (GET /blueprints) and the workspace filtering logic, but does not disclose rate limits or auth requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise: three sentences that cover the purpose, behavior, and API call. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple listing tool with good annotations and well-documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It explains the workspace filtering logic and API endpoint. However, it could explicitly mention that results are paginated, though pagination parameters hint at this.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (limit, cursor, ownerId). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states it lists blueprints for specified workspaces, using the verb 'List' and resource 'Blueprints'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like render_retrieve_blueprint (singular) and render_list_blueprint_syncs (different resource).

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 explains the default behavior (returns all blueprints if no workspaces provided), giving context on when to filter. It implicitly differentiates from other list tools by focusing on blueprints, but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like render_retrieve_blueprint.

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