blueprint_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' and the phrase 'use before editing' make it clear this is a non-mutating inspection tool, and the list of inspectable elements provides useful scope. It does not disclose error handling or return formats, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact list of inspectable aspects and a one-line use case. Every clause carries meaning, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Considering the tool's breadth (10 action enum values, 5 parameters, nested query object) and absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. The schema fully documents parameters, and the description adds the important strategic context of 'use before editing'. It is slightly thin on return-value expectations, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, though 'resolve graph names, node GUIDs, and pin names' loosely reinforces the roles of graph_name and node_guid. The schema adequately handles the rest.

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?

Description opens with 'Read Blueprint structure'—a specific verb with a clear resource—and enumerates concrete sub-resources (graphs, functions, variables, nodes with pins and links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blueprint_list and blueprint_info, which are separate tools.

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?

'Use before editing to resolve graph names, node GUIDs, and pin names' explicitly states when this tool should be used. However, it does not mention any exclusions or name alternative tools for cases where this tool would not be appropriate.

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