blueprint_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and listing the returned content adds context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or performance considerations.

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 action and resource, followed by specific content categories. There is no filler or redundant wording, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter info retrieval tool, the description covers the main result areas and is reasonably complete. However, given the large number of Blueprint-related sibling tools, the lack of differentiation from blueprint_inspect and blueprint_document leaves some contextual ambiguity that could confuse an agent.

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 100% description coverage for the single required parameter, blueprint_path, with a clear description ('Asset path of the Blueprint'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 identifies the tool as retrieving detailed Blueprint structure, enumerating the specific contents: components, variables, functions, event graphs, and parent chain. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Blueprint structure'), but does not distinguish it from related sibling tools like blueprint_inspect or asset_info.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blueprint_inspect, blueprint_document, or asset_info. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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