Compose Blueprint Output

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

With no annotations, the description fully details behavioral traits: conditions for executing assistantNextSteps, sub-agent spawning for hydrate-group-docs, and the prohibition on asking the user unless impossible. This is highly transparent 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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, behavioral instructions follow logically. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 simple parameter set (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core function and provides comprehensive behavioral rules, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing baseline info for both parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already states about groupingArtifactId and language.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb 'Compose' and the resource 'frontend-ready Blueprint JSON' from a grouping artifact, defining a distinct purpose that differentiates from sibling tools like blueprint.group, blueprint.scan, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides internal behavioral instructions (e.g., how to handle assistantNextSteps and hydrate-group-docs), not tool selection criteria.

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