Validate Blueprint

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

The description states the tool does not create or modify resources, but annotations mark readOnlyHint as false, creating a contradiction. Per guidelines, score 1 for contradiction.

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 efficient, starting with the purpose, then key behaviors, constraints, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains the return behavior (plan of resources), file size limit, and required content-type. Parameter descriptions are clear, though no output schema is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds general constraints (file size, content-type) but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the 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 clearly identifies the tool as validating a Blueprint file without side effects, using the verb 'validate' and specifying the resource 'render.yaml Blueprint file'. It distinguishes from mutating tools like render_update_blueprint by stating no resource creation or modification.

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 tool's purpose (validate syntax/structure before deployment) and its non-modifying nature, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative sibling tools.

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