🟢 OpenAPI spec. Optional endpoints=GET:/blueprints,POST:/blueprints to shrink payload.

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. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of spec size, auth requirements, or caching behavior for what can be a very large payload, which is the main practical concern for this tool.

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?

It is short, but the sentence is a near-verbatim copy of the title, including the decorative 🟢 emoji, and carries no front-loaded purpose statement. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to say why an agent would fetch the OpenAPI spec or how it relates to the other image-builder tools. For a discovery/meta tool the missing 'use this to learn the endpoints' framing is a real gap.

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 single endpoints parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the exact format and the create/update condition. The description merely repeats the same example values, adding no meaning beyond structured data, which lands at the baseline 3.

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?

The phrase 'to shrink payload' hints at when the endpoints parameter is useful, but there is no guidance on when to call this tool at all versus siblings like image-builder__get_blueprints or get_blueprint_details. The more concrete 'Only needed for create_blueprint/update_blueprint' condition lives in the schema, not the description.

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