Diff blueprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so read-only behavior is known. The description adds specific behavioral detail about the comparison output (missing, changed, extra), providing useful context beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise, using two well-structured sentences to fully convey the tool's function. Every word adds value—no fluff or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description effectively completes the picture by explaining the conceptual output. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, but it contextualizes the overall purpose, meeting the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.

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 that the tool compares a saved blueprint against the live server, enumerating the three categories of differences (missing, changed, extra). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_blueprint or list_blueprints by focusing on drift detection.

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 explicitly labels the tool as 'the drift detector for config-as-code workflows,' indicating its primary use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to guide appropriate usage.

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