blueprint_specs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it fails to say whether this is a read or a write operation, whether candidates are persisted or merely returned, or what permissions/state it touches. The phrase 'before adding it' further muddies whether this tool mutates state or not.

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 short, but the colon-chained phrasing ('...weights...): the line, the numbers near it') is cryptic and hard to parse, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than trimming waste.

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 and no output schema, the description must be self-sufficient, yet it omits what the tool returns, how candidates are represented, and how the parameters map to behavior. For a 2-param tool in a dense blueprint_* family, this is inadequate.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter ('gun' or 'source_id'). Param names are somewhat self-evident, but the description adds no meaning, format, or constraints—leaving the required 'gun' input 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 conveys that the tool surfaces candidate values for data-table quantities (overall length, barrel length, weights) tied to a line and nearby numbers, which gives a rough sense of the resource. However, there is no clear verb—it never states whether it retrieves, extracts, or registers candidates—and it does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings like blueprint_numbers, blueprint_measure, or blueprint_fact_add.

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?

'Step 2' signals a position in a workflow, and 'Check a candidate on the page picture before adding it' implies a verification-then-add sequence, which is mild procedural guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no mention of which sibling performs the actual 'adding', and no prerequisites are stated.

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