blueprint_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, persistence, whether it creates or reads a frame, or what permissions/state it needs. It does disclose the geometric semantics (bore line runs rear-to-muzzle, origin is the bolt face), which is the only behavioral value present.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, and it is not clearly front-loaded around an action.

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?

With five required parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to let an agent call this correctly. It omits the operation itself, the meaning of two parameters, and any behavioral or return context.

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 only 20% (just origin: 'px: the bolt face'), so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It partially clarifies bore_rear/bore_front via the bore-line explanation and origin via the bolt face, but leaves 'gun' and 'figure_id' entirely unexplained.

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 gestures at the domain concept ('how a figure lies in gun space') but never states an action verb, so it is unclear whether the tool defines, returns, or mutates a frame. It is more conceptual explanation than a statement of what the tool does, and it does not differentiate itself from the many other blueprint_* siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool among the large blueprint_* family. The agent is given no basis for choosing this over blueprint_align, blueprint_calibrate, or blueprint_views.

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