Get blueprint template

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: calling without arguments lists templates, and the design conventions are referenced via the discord://design-guide resource. It does not describe the return format, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys what, why, and how to invoke the tool.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (a ready-made blueprint), how to use it (as a starting point for apply_blueprint/create_guild), and the optional no-argument behavior. It even points to a design-guide resource for deeper conventions. While return format is not specified, the tool's simplicity and the presence of readOnlyHint mitigate that 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% and the schema already documents the 'kind' parameter with its allowed values and the omit-to-list-all behavior. The description reinforces the kinds and the omit behavior but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a ready-made server blueprint for a common community type (gaming, dev, support, creator) to use as a starting point for apply_blueprint or create_guild.' It uses a specific verb (get), names the resource (blueprint template), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tools apply_blueprint and create_guild by noting they consume the template.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'to use as a starting point for apply_blueprint or create_guild -- rename and adjust instead of designing from zero.' It also explains the no-argument call to list templates. It does not explicitly exclude other alternatives, but the downstream references and sibling tools imply the intended workflow.

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