get_blueprint_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') but does not mention error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., valid project path), or output format, leaving important behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and avoids redundancy, earning the maximum score for conciseness and structure.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose and return content, the lack of an output schema and the absence of details about scope (e.g., inherited functions, sorting) or error handling leaves the description minimally sufficient but not fully complete for a tool with no structured output specification.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter blueprint_path as a relative path to the Blueprint asset (100% coverage), and the description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 'List' with a clear resource 'functions in a Blueprint' and specifies the return contents (signatures, parameters, properties), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_blueprint_variables which list variables.

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 the tool is for retrieving function definitions, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like inspect_blueprint or search_blueprint_nodes, nor does it provide exclusions or context about prerequisites.

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