blueprint_trace

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. 'Kept for the plan' and 'Look at the picture it writes' hint at a persistent write and an image output, but nothing is said about permissions, side effects, error behavior, or what exactly gets stored. For a 15-parameter tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Only two sentences, so it is not bloated, but the writing is oblique and front-loads atmosphere over the concrete action. The key verb and return behavior are buried or absent, so brevity here costs clarity rather than earning it.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 53% schema coverage, the description should do far more. It omits return format, persistence semantics, and most parameter behavior, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 53%, and the description partially compensates by tying each method mode to its scenario, which clarifies method plus the region/seed/rough/box parameters. It adds no meaning for the many tuning parameters (light, eps_px, gap_px, close_px, radius_px), leaving the coverage gap only partly filled.

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 implies the tool produces an outline/trace from a figure ('An outline from a figure, kept for the plan'), but the phrasing is poetic and never states a clear verb like 'extract' or 'vectorize'. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as blueprint_figure_add or blueprint_mark, so an agent must infer the purpose.

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?

The four listed modes (whole silhouette, closed area round a seed, rough outline snapped onto the ink, patch in a halftone) map onto the method values silhouette/region/snap/blob, which gives implicit guidance for choosing a method. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs siblings or statement of preconditions.

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