blueprint_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output artifact (rendered pictures / contact sheet) and 'to read' implies a non-mutating render, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects, output format details, or limits.

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 no wasted words; the two modes are stated compactly. The terseness is efficient even if it borders on being too terse to be clear.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the required 'gun'/'source_id' inputs or clarify what the rendered result actually is.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It touches on dpi and the pages concept, but the required parameters 'gun' and 'source_id' are never explained, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both schema and description.

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 conveys that pages are rendered as images and distinguishes two modes (single page at a dpi, or several side by side as a contact sheet). However, the phrasing 'Pages as pictures to read' is cryptic and never states a clean verb+resource, and there is no differentiation from the many blueprint_* siblings (blueprint_read, blueprint_text, blueprint_views).

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?

It implies two usage contexts: 'to read' a single page and 'to find the figures' via a contact sheet. That is useful implied guidance, but no alternative sibling is named and there are no when-not conditions.

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