Validate blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains in-memory compilation, return of element count and errors, support for keyframes/globals, and format parameter options. It does not mention destructive behavior, auth needs, or rate limits, but as a validation tool, non-destructive is implied. Good coverage of behavioral traits.

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: first sentence states core purpose and return type; second elaborates on supported features and format parameter. Front-loaded, no fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return type (element count and errors), and special parameters. It lacks detailed return format for errors, but is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 one parameter. The description adds value by explaining the format parameter options ('classic' vs 'atomic') and mentioning keyframes/globals support, which supplements the schema's structural description. Baseline 3, plus extra context justifies a 4.

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 starts with 'Compile a blueprint in-memory without writing a file. Returns the element count and any errors', providing a specific verb (compile/validate) and resource (blueprint). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like build_page, build_popup, build_site which likely write files.

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 'so you can fix issues before building' strongly implies use before build tools. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. Given sibling tools are all build-oriented, the context is clear.

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