blueprint_preview

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'dry-run' implies no modifications, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It adds some transparency but is incomplete.

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 one short sentence, which is concise but arguably too brief given the complexity of the input schema. It lacks structure or front-loading of key information. It is adequate but not optimal.

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 highly complex schema with nested objects and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe what kind of output is returned (e.g., a list of files, diff), nor does it explain how the blueprint parameter maps to file changes. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain what 'projectPath' or 'blueprint' are, nor does it clarify the complex nested structure of the blueprint object. It adds little meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 returns a dry-run preview of files changed by a blueprint. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'preview of files changed', which distinguishes it from siblings like blueprint_apply (applies changes) and blueprint_validate (validates).

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 previewing before applying, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or required prerequisites. It does not mention that it should be used before blueprint_apply or that it is read-only.

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