read_blueprint_content

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as a read operation but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or how the data is returned. The statement is straightforward but lacks depth for a comprehensive understanding.

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 front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded without being verbose, especially regarding parameters.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. While the output schema may document return values, the description does not address the scope of 'complete content' or the effect of optional includes.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description fails to explain the boolean parameters (include_functions, etc.) or how they affect the output. It only lists item types, which does not compensate for missing parameter details.

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 tool reads complete Blueprint content, listing specific components (event graph, functions, variables, components). The verb 'Read' and resource 'Blueprint content' are precise, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create or modify blueprints.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as for partial reads or modifications, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_blueprint_class_defaults' or 'get_asset_info'.

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