blueprint_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that overlays are placed on every framed figure and says to look at them, but does not state whether it mutates the blueprint, writes files, what permissions are needed, or what the result looks like.

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 text is short and front-loads the step number, but it is structured as a sentence fragment with awkward punctuation. It is concise without being well-formed, so it only partially meets the structure requirement.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover the required parameter, most optional parameters, return behavior, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps 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 coverage is only 33%, and only the reference parameter has a schema description. The description does not explain the required gun parameter or reference_holes, nor does it add semantics beyond the single schema-described parameter.

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 enumerates what is checked: contract, reference outline overlap/edge gaps, length/weight facts, and overlays on framed figures. However, it is a fragment missing an explicit verb and does not clearly differentiate this check from siblings like contract_check or blueprint_measure.

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?

"Step 5" implies a workflow position, so some usage context is conveyed. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance, leaving the agent to infer the call context.

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