inspect_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states what information is returned but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or free of side effects. Although the verb 'Get' strongly implies a safe read, the description does not disclose potential performance costs or output format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists what is included, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description sufficiently covers the output scope by listing the major Blueprint components. However, the absence of an output schema and lack of detail about the structure's hierarchy or shape leave some room for ambiguity, so it does not reach a perfect 5.

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%: the sole parameter blueprint_path is well described with a concrete example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full Blueprint structure'). It explicitly enumerates the included contents (variables, functions, graphs, components), which distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like get_blueprint_functions or get_blueprint_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 usage when a comprehensive overview of a Blueprint is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides context ('full') but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance, resulting in a score of 3.

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