blueprint_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool generates a text summary, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether the Blueprint is modified, what happens if the path is invalid, or any side effects. The absence of additional behavioral context makes it insufficient.

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, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description states the output is a 'human-readable text summary', but it does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., missing Blueprint) or provide guidance on when to prefer this over related blueprint tools. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only hints at the content of the summary ('structure, variables, and components') without elaborating on the detail_level parameter or the path format. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific action (generate a summary) and a specific resource (Blueprint's structure, variables, and components). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blueprint_info or blueprint_inspect by focusing on a 'human-readable text summary', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage when a human-readable summary of a Blueprint is needed, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blueprint_info or blueprint_inspect. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the usage context implicit.

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