capture_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only conveys snapshot-like capture and vaguely references native blueprint settings. It does not clarify whether a catalog entry or other persistent artifact is created, what capturing sandbox surfaces entails, or whether anything in the world is modified.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. Its compression comes at the cost of leaving terms such as 'native blueprint settings' and important invocation details unexplained.

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?

The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but correct invocation still depends on two undocumented required parameters, including an open-ended nested object. Given five parameters, no annotations, and several related blueprint siblings, the description is not complete enough to reliably guide selection and invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the required surface identifier or the nested area object's expected shape and coordinates. Mentions of sandbox surfaces and native settings offer only weak hints and do not define label, include_tiles, or include_trains behavior.

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 gives a clear verb and resource—capturing a layout as a blueprint—and adds the notable capability of supporting sandbox surfaces. It does not explicitly distinguish this operation from siblings such as import_blueprint, export_blueprint, or create_plan.

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 wording implies use when taking a native-settings blueprint snapshot, including on sandbox surfaces. However, it gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or guidance on when to choose this over the other blueprint or planning tools.

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