get_blueprint_variable_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a special case (empty name returns all variables) but does not clarify what 'detailed info' includes, any prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must be compiled), side effects, or whether it is read-only.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavior. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded without losing brevity.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values need not be described. However, given the complexity and many sibling tools, the description lacks prerequisites, error handling, and differentiation from similar tools like get_blueprint_class_defaults. Adequate but with gaps.

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 adds context for variable_name (empty returns all) but provides no explanation for blueprint_path or any constraints. Incomplete parameter guidance.

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 action ('Get detailed info') and the resource ('Blueprint variables'), and includes a specific behavior note ('empty name = all variables'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_blueprint_variable or set_blueprint_variable_properties.

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 implies usage when variable details are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_blueprint_content or get_blueprint_class_defaults. No exclusions or context are given.

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