blueprint_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output classification scheme and that captions are returned, which is genuinely useful, but it omits permission requirements, whether processing is synchronous or long-running, and any dependency on a prior source-add step.

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; it delivers the essential output contract compactly. It reads as a fragment with no stated subject or action verb for the tool itself, but it earns its length.

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 2-parameter required-input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return categories but leaves the crucial 'gun' parameter, prerequisites, and error behavior unexplained. Incomplete for its complexity.

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% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. 'gun' is entirely opaque — an agent cannot infer its format or meaning from name, schema, or description. This is a severe gap for a required 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 states a specific verb and resource: sorting every page of a source into five named categories plus captions. It is concrete enough to distinguish from siblings like blueprint_page or blueprint_text, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from blueprint_read or blueprint_specs.

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 call this versus blueprint_read, blueprint_page, blueprint_text, or blueprint_source_add. No prerequisites (e.g. must the source be ingested first?) and no exclusions are stated.

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