Refresh Blueprint Deterministically

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses main actions (compares scans, writes files, returns prompt) and a negative behavior (does not send raw git diffs). However, it lacks details on error handling, side effects like file overwriting, or conditions under which dryRun should be used.

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 concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, process/negative disclosure, and follow-up guidance. No extraneous 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?

Despite no output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers the main process and output (maintenance prompt). It is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning error scenarios, output format details, and when to use dryRun. Overall adequate for an agent.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 deterministically refreshes .blueprint/blueprint-output.json from the current filesystem snapshot, and explains the process of comparing scan files and writing outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying a follow-up action with blueprint.group.update.

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 to use blueprint.group.update afterwards for unassigned files or empty group decisions, providing clear context for when to use this tool vs its sibling. However, it does not include when-not-to-use scenarios or explicit alternatives beyond this one.

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