blueprint_get_blueprint_inputs_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the underlying GET endpoint, which implies a plain retrieval, but says nothing about errors (missing blueprint), auth, or what the returned schema represents — the lower bar when annotations are present makes this acceptable but unremarkable.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the purpose. The raw HTTP route 'GET /blueprint/api/blueprints/{blueprintId}/inputs-schema' is mostly filler already implied by the tool name, but it costs little.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what an 'inputs schema' looks like or how it should be used (e.g., to render parameters or validate a request). For a simple read tool that is marginally adequate but leaves a real explanatory gap.

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 100%; both apiVersion and blueprintId are documented in the schema, including the '(path)' marker. The description repeats the blueprintId path variable but adds no extra semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 inputs schema' for a given blueprintId. It is understandable without the schema, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling blueprint_get_blueprint_version_inputs_schema, which sounds near-identical.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With a sibling that fetches an inputs schema for a blueprint *version*, the description gives the agent no basis to choose between the two and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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