blueprint_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the scope is stated, but it doesn't disclose return format, limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the schema. It's adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the operation and all key filtering options with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 list tool, the description plus schema sufficiently cover input parameters and purpose. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't explicitly describe return fields, but 'List' implies a list of blueprints. A small note about returned data would make it complete, hence not a 5.

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 mostly paraphrases the schema (path, name, parent class) and omits the limit parameter, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('Blueprint assets') and explicitly names the optional filtering dimensions (path, name, parent class). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blueprint_info or asset_list.

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?

It gives clear context for use: enumerating Blueprint assets with optional filters. It stops short of explicitly mentioning when not to use it or pointing to alternatives like asset_list for all assets, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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