blueprint_grid

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. It hints that output changes conditionally ('once framed, its bore line, origin and cm grid'), which is modestly useful, but says nothing about whether it mutates rig state, what it returns (image? coordinates?), or what happens if the figure is not yet framed.

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, which is good. However, it is structured as an awkward noun phrase whose key content (framing state, overlays) is parenthetically buried, so it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only information source and it is grossly insufficient. An agent cannot determine required inputs, what the tool returns, or the framing prerequisite with confidence.

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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description never mentions gun, figure_id, zoom, region, or step_px. Terms like 'pixel grid' faintly gesture at step_px/zoom but give no mapping or units, so the description fails to compensate for the entirely undocumented schema.

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 is a noun phrase ('The figure with a labelled pixel grid...') rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never says whether blueprint_grid generates, renders, or fetches something. It restates the tool name's 'grid' concept and adds only a hint about framing-dependent overlays, leaving the actual action ambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of any sibling (e.g., blueprint_page, blueprint_measure, blueprint_trace) that an agent should pick instead. The only usable cue is the incidental phrase 'once framed', implying blueprint_frame is a prerequisite, but this is inference rather than stated guidance.

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