🟢 Blueprint details by UUID, name, or reply_id from get_blueprints.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing behavioral – no note on what happens with an unresolvable identifier, whether lookups are case-sensitive, or whether name collisions are possible, which matters for a name-or-UUID lookup.

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 short sentence with no wasted clauses, correctly front-loaded. However, it is effectively a restatement of the title, so it earns its place only marginally rather than adding new information.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full-coverage schema, an output schema (so return values need no explanation), and annotations covering the safety profile, the minimum needed to invoke it is present. The definition stops at minimum viability and omits any lookup-behavior nuances that would make it complete.

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% and the single parameter's schema text ('The UUID, name or reply_id to query') is nearly identical to what the description states. With full coverage the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no syntax, format, or precedence rules for choosing among the three identifier types.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this after get_blueprints to drill into a single blueprint, since the description mentions reply_id 'from get_blueprints'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no when-not-to-use or error-handling guidance.

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