blueprint_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds a genuine behavioral requirement ('必须展示真实审稿结果' – must display real review results), signaling the output must reflect actual reviewer findings, but it omits pagination, error behavior on invalid job_id, and what happens when 'artifact' is omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with two clauses that each carry weight — the list/read modes come first and the output expectation second. No filler or redundancy, though the second clause is more of a directive than a description of the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value information; it only roughly sketches it ('list paths' or 'read content') without detailing structure or the review-result format it insists on. For a two-param read tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but leaves notable gaps about output shape and the enum values.

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 coverage is 50%: job_id is documented ('任务返回的 ID') while 'artifact' has only an enum with no description. The description partially compensates by framing the two modes (listing vs reading a specified artifact), which gives 'artifact' meaning, but it does not explain the enum file types or the ID's 12-hex-character constraint.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: '列出成果路径' (list artifact paths) and '读取指定成果正文' (read specified artifact content). This is clear and non-tautological, but it never references any sibling (blueprint_status, blueprint_audit, blueprint_plan) to disambiguate, so an agent still has to guess which of the seven blueprint_* tools owns artifact retrieval.

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 dual phrasing implies the operating modes — omit 'artifact' to list paths, supply it to read content — which is useful implicit usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like blueprint_status or blueprint_audit, and no preconditions stated beyond the required job_id.

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