Get OpenAPI spec. Use this to get details e.g for a new blueprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that it returns OpenAPI specification JSON (possibly reduced) and raises an exception on connection failure. This provides additional behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the reduction behavior and error case.

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?

Description is very concise (three sentences plus return/exception) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, immediate call-to-action, parameter usage, return type, and error case. No redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to call, parameter details, return value, and potential error. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the single optional parameter. The description adds meaningful context: specifies that endpoints is a comma-separated list, clarifies its purpose to minimize the spec only for create/update_blueprint payload preparation. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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?

Title and description clearly state it retrieves the OpenAPI spec. The phrase 'Use this to get details e.g for a new blueprint' distinguishes it from sibling tools like image-builder__get_blueprints. The verb 'Get' and resource 'OpenAPI spec' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description includes explicit instruction 'CALL IMMEDIATELY - No information gathering required,' indicating immediate usefulness. It specifies when to use the optional 'endpoints' parameter (only for create/update_blueprint). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools, which would improve guidance.

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