generate_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, limitations, or whether the operation is read-only or destructive. For a generation tool, it fails to clarify what happens with invalid inputs or what the output format is, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 that is front-loaded with the role ('ATUA COMO ARQUITETO E DIRETOR DE ARTE') and immediately states the purpose and deliverables. It is concise and efficiently packs information, though it could be broken into two sentences for readability. No redundant content.

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?

The description lists the components of the generated plan, which is useful, but it does not describe the return format or any constraints on inputs (e.g., whether style_preference is optional). Given the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, more context about what the agent should expect as output would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a basic understanding.

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 provides clear descriptions for all three parameters, covering 100% of them. The description mentions 'nicho ou objetivo' which aligns with the niche and goal parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is high, 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 states a specific verb ('gera') and a clear resource ('plano arquitetural completo'), and lists the specific components it produces (storytelling, template selection, design system, stack, multi-agent roles). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like get_template or list_design_systems, which are retrieval tools for individual items.

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 it is for generating a whole plan rather than retrieving specific templates or design systems, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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