titan_get_role_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It describes the content of the blueprint (decision order, API methods, settings, mistakes) and the special role for healers, but does not specify the return format, error behavior, or whether any side effects exist. For a read-only getter, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences long, with no fluff. The first sentence efficiently lists the main contents; the second adds crucial context for healers. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the blueprint contains, including pitfalls and the special SimC APL context for healers. It does not describe the exact output format, but the term 'blueprint' and the content list give enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 single parameter 'role' is fully described in the schema (healer/tank/dps), and the description repeats this information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond reinforcement, but it does mention the allowed values in the opening sentence.

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 that the tool provides a decision-making order for a role (healer/tank/dps), specifying what to check, in what order, which API methods to use, player settings, and typical mistakes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is a functional blueprint, not just a data listing.

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 the tool is used when you need decision logic for a role, and for healers it explicitly positions itself as a replacement for the missing SimC APL. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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