get_blueprint

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return payload components but doesn't mention read-only nature, performance implications, or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is concise, with a one-line summary and clear Args section. No wasted words, though the docstring style is slightly more verbose than necessary.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and parameter source. Could add return format details or pagination/limits, but output schema may cover that.

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 description adds meaning for the one parameter (blueprint_id) by referencing list_blueprints to obtain it. However, it doesn't specify format or constraints beyond what the schema shows (string).

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 it fetches the full blueprint payload, listing components like nodes, edges, groups, and layout. This is clear and specific, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_blueprints which lists metadata only.

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 description implies usage when a full blueprint is needed, but provides no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. It references list_blueprints for obtaining the ID, which is helpful context.

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