blueprint_get_about

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it names the required privilege (assembler admin in VM Apps Org) and describes the payload (supported and latest API versions). It stops short of return structure or failure modes, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

The core statement is front-loaded, but the body trails off into generic REST documentation ('Here is an example of a call...') and raw endpoint URLs that add little for an MCP caller. The important access restriction is buried mid-paragraph rather than surfaced.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned content and the access requirement is the right coverage, and it does that. However, the misleading version-parameter discussion leaves ambiguity about what the tool actually returns and whether arguments are accepted, which undermines completeness.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline would be 4, but the description actively invents a 'version parameter' that does not exist in the input schema (which is an empty object with additionalProperties=false). The apiVersion example refers to the underlying REST URL, not to any MCP argument, so an agent reading this may attempt to pass an argument the tool cannot accept.

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 ('Returns blueprint API information') and then narrows to what the page contains: supported API versions and the latest version. An agent can distinguish it from blueprint_get_blueprint or blueprint_list_blueprints because it clearly reads as an endpoints/version discovery call, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It hints at the reason to call it ('version parameter is optional but highly recommended' before issuing other blueprint calls) and adds an access gate ('Only assembler admin in VM Apps Org can access'). It does not state explicitly when to prefer this over sibling tools or what to do if access is denied, so usage remains implied rather than prescribed.

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