export_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'export' and 'exact' suggest a non-mutating, faithful serialization, and the output format is identified. It does not explain record lookup, invalid-reference behavior, or limitations for books, although the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the action, supported record types, fidelity, and output format without filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though it cannot compensate for the missing reference semantics.

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, and the operation itself is simple. Nevertheless, the definition omits the critical source and syntax of ref and any workflow link to blueprint_catalog or capture_blueprint, leaving a required invocation detail unresolved.

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?

The sole parameter, ref, has no schema description, and the description never explains its accepted format or where to obtain it. At most, an agent can infer that ref identifies a blueprint or book record, which is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 specific verb, resource, and output: exporting a blueprint or book record as a standard Factorio string. It does not explicitly distinguish this operation from capture_blueprint, import_blueprint, or inspect_blueprint.

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 desired end result—a standard Factorio string—implies when the tool is useful. It provides no explicit prerequisites, when-not guidance, or direction to siblings for capturing, importing, inspecting, or locating records.

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