get_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does disclose the return format clearly ('JSON manifest with all files... ready to write to disk') and notes format parity with the paid export. It does not cover error behavior, auth requirements, or invalid-ID handling, but for a download operation the return format disclosure is substantive and actionable.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence fronts the core purpose (verb + resource + key), and the second adds the return format. It earns its place without redundancy, though it could arguably compress the file enumeration.

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?

For a simple one-parameter download tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it states the return format, the file contents, and the free-vs-paid distinction. Notable gaps are error behavior and authentication prerequisites, but these are minor for a read-style download of this simplicity.

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 schema covers the single parameter blueprintId at 100% and even gives provenance ('from list_blueprints'). The description adds no further format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's value here is limited since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Download'), a concrete resource ('AI agent blueprint'), and the identifying key ('by ID'). The description also scopes it to 'free' blueprints and contrasts it with the paid export, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling list_blueprints and from the paid export path. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs without opening the schema.

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 gives context — it is the free variant, and the parameter description ('Blueprint ID from list_blueprints') implies a prerequisite workflow. However, the tool description itself does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tool or the paid export, nor does it state when NOT to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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