blueprint_run

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description repeats this with 'Read-only, no side effects' and adds the scoping detail that it shows tasks materialized so far. With annotations covering safety, the description contributes modest additional context — a fair 3.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and the read-only note, with no filler. The only redundancy is the Args block restating what the schema already documents, which is minor for a single parameter.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with a present output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and the parameter. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though it adds little beyond what the schema and annotations already provide.

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 coverage is 100% and the single run_id parameter is fully described in the schema ('The run ID returned by blueprint_instantiate()'). The description repeats this exact text, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (a blueprint run) and defines the content: 'its status and every task materialized so far.' This clearly separates it from blueprint_instantiate (creates a run) and blueprint_list (lists blueprints), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

'Use to see how far a run has expanded and which tasks are still open' gives explicit, actionable context for when to call it. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the single clear use case is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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