blueprint_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose one important trait: 'Original library records are never modified', establishing a read-only safety profile. It adds nothing about pagination behavior, how recursion interacts with refs, or expected cost/size of results, so mutation semantics are the only behavior clarified.

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 and front-loaded, with the browse scope first and the safety guarantee last, so size is fine. However, sentences like 'Browse player/game libraries, nested books, inventory and captured blueprints' are packed and cryptic rather than crisp, and 'RAILS' in capitals is unexplained noise.

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?

A five-parameter, unannotated catalog tool needs at least a word on pagination and recursion semantics, and neither is present. The output schema covers return values and the read-only guarantee is stated, but the parameter space remains a black box for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0% for five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints that 'query' searches RAILS or a project label and that 'ref' refers to returned references identifying exact records, but limit, offset, and recursive are entirely unexplained.

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 says it browses 'player/game libraries, nested books, inventory and captured blueprints', which gives a verb and a resource set, but the list is a grab-bag of overlapping concepts and 'RAILS' appears with no definition. An agent cannot cleanly separate it from siblings like inspect_blueprint or list_prototypes without opening the schema.

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 only routing hint is 'Search RAILS or a project label with query', which tells how to use one parameter but not when to pick this tool over inspect_blueprint or list_prototypes. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool guidance are given.

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