inspect_blueprint

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; 'Read' implies a non-mutating snapshot and it discloses that entities are only included when the optional flag is set, which is genuine behavioral detail. However, it says nothing about what happens when ref is unknown, whether books/multiple blueprints are handled, or the cost of include_entities on large blueprints.

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 telegraphic sentence with no wasted words, and the most important content (what is read) is front-loaded. The fragment style omits a subject and reads as a list rather than a sentence, which slightly reduces clarity but not length.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description did not need to enumerate return fields, and doing so is partly redundant. The critical gap is that for a tool whose only required input is a reference identifier, the description never explains what a ref is or where it comes from, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly without guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by tying 'optional full native entities' to include_entities, but the required 'ref' parameter is given no meaning whatsoever — no indication of format (name, ID, catalog key) or how to obtain a valid value. Half the parameters remain opaque.

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?

Uses the verb 'Read' against the blueprint resource (from the name) and enumerates what is returned: footprint, quantities, stations, grid snapping, and optional native entities. This is specific enough to separate it from capture_blueprint or import_blueprint, though it never names those siblings or says 'blueprint' explicitly in the prose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. It does not state whether the ref must point to an existing catalog/imported blueprint, nor does it route the agent to capture_blueprint, export_blueprint, or blueprint_catalog as alternatives. The agent must infer the invocation context from the tool name alone.

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