blueprint_read

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, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only operation, not what happens when the gun is unknown, and not whether the default 'what' value affects behavior. 'As it stands' hints at current-state retrieval but never explains it.

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 short sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. The front-loaded content is a noun phrase with no actionable verb.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this correctly. It says nothing about return format, the gun identifier, or how the default 'what' value changes the result.

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 50%, and the undocumented 'gun' parameter is the required one. The description's mention of 'blueprint or sources' loosely echoes the 'what' enum values already given in the schema, adding no syntax, format, or identifier guidance for 'gun'.

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 gun's blueprint or sources document as it stands') that restates what the tool's name already implies rather than stating a verb and scope. It offers no differentiation from the many sibling blueprint_* tools (blueprint_text, blueprint_page, blueprint_specs), so an agent cannot tell what makes this read distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blueprint_text, blueprint_page, or blueprint_source_add. No preconditions, no exclusions, no mention of what 'as it stands' implies about freshness or state.

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