blueprint_get_blueprint_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing beyond restating the endpoint path. It does not explain what a blueprint request represents, what happens on an unknown id, or any error/miss behavior.

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 action. Slightly wasteful because the second line merely repeats the annotation title, but there is no padding or rambling.

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 simple read-by-id tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. Still missing is any explanation of what a blueprint request is or how the returned detail relates to its execution/plan/resources siblings, which would help an agent choose it correctly.

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%: requestId (uuid path param) and apiVersion are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 request details) and matches the requestId path parameter. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as blueprint_list_blueprint_requests, blueprint_get_blueprint_request_execution, or blueprint_get_blueprint_requests_by_request_id_resources_plan, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 only usage signal is the implicit requirement of a requestId. There is no statement of when to use this versus the list, execution, or plan endpoints, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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