blueprint_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It reveals an important non-obvious trait: 'Success' refers to the compile run, not the compile result, and directs users to 'compiled' and 'had_errors'. This is valuable beyond the basic operation, though it does not describe other side effects or preconditions.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that leads with the action and appends a clarifying clause. No filler or redundant content - every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return semantics. It does so by naming success/failure, error details, and the 'compiled'/'had_errors' fields. For a one-parameter tool, this is sufficient, though a more enumerated return structure would be slightly clearer.

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 blueprint_path with a pattern and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Compile') and resource ('Blueprint') and immediately clarifies the distinction between the compile operation and its result. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blueprint_create or blueprint_build_from_json.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: to compile a Blueprint and obtain result details. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related Blueprint tools (e.g. blueprint_build_from_json) or when not to use it.

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