list_blueprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of each returned summary (id, name, tags, updatedAt), but that duplicates the existing output schema and leaves pagination or result-size behavior unstated.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the account-wide scope is front-loaded ahead of the follow-up hint. Nothing padded or redundant in the phrasing itself.

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 no-argument, read-only list with an output schema covering return fields, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it and identifies the natural next call. Only the absence of any note on result volume or pagination keeps it short of full marks.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. No argument syntax or filtering behavior is claimed that would need explanation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every Cloudcraft blueprint (diagram)') and scopes it to 'the authenticated account'. This clearly distinguishes it from get_blueprint, create_blueprint, and the other blueprint siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Use get_blueprint afterwards to pull the full node / edge JSON', which clarifies this is the lightweight enumeration step. It gives clear context but does not state when listing is unnecessary or set bounds on use.

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