Get blueprint

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, so the description need not repeat that. It adds minor context by noting 'in full,' but does not disclose behaviors like error handling or exact return format. This is adequate given the annotation, but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('One saved blueprint') and immediately provides the selection criteria ('by name or ID'). Every word carries meaning, with no filler 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and a read-only annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the object and identifier, but omits what 'in full' concretely returns (e.g., whether it includes all nested fields). However, given the sibling context and schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 fully documents the single parameter with a description ('Blueprint name or ID'), and the tool description echoes that same meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond confirming the lookup key.

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 retrieving a single saved blueprint, either by name or ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_blueprints (which lists all) and diff_blueprint, making the purpose immediately unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to fetch exactly one blueprint), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Users are left to infer that list_blueprints is for multiple results, which is reasonable but not stated.

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