Audit the 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 behavioral disclosure. It adds significant value by stating that 'Secrets are masked in the output' and enumerating the checks performed. It does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies the blueprint, but 'Risk report before importing' implies non-destructive analysis.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Risk report before importing') followed by a concise colon-separated list of risk categories. No wasted words, and all content adds value.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, usage timing, specific checks, and output masking. It does not detail the exact report format or return values, but for a single-parameter tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, fully describing it as a path to a Make.com scenario blueprint. The description does not add further parameter details, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a 'Risk report before importing', identifying specific risk categories (hardcoded credential-shaped values, dangling module references, plain-http URLs, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_blueprint or trace_module by focusing on security/risk auditing rather than general inspection or tracing.

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 explicitly says 'before importing', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of exhaustive comparative guidance.

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