blueprint_has_changed

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

The description adds method details (using Git or filesystem timestamp) beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. However, it does not specify the return type or what 'changed' means (e.g., boolean vs details), leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is informative with no redundancy. It is optimally concise.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., boolean) or provide more detail on what constitutes a change. Its absence leaves the tool under-specified for an AI agent to interpret results correctly.

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 parameter blueprint_path already has a full description in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline 3.

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 checks if ProjectBlueprint.md has changed, specifying the methods (Git or filesystem timestamp). It is specific to the blueprint file, distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_has_changed.

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 for checking blueprint changes but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_has_changed or detect_external_changes. No when-not-to-use or alternative names mentioned.

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