blueprint_get_blueprint_resources_plan

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, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — not what the plan reflects (current state vs. pending execution), whether it is a point-in-time snapshot, or how large it may be — and it merely restates the endpoint already present in the annotation title.

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?

It is very short and front-loaded, but the second line is a raw HTTP path that duplicates the annotation title, so it consumes space without adding information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient editing.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a "plan" object looks like or what an agent would use it for, and it does not. For a 3-parameter read tool with a complex domain (blueprint requests), this leaves the agent unable to judge relevance or interpret results.

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%, so requestId, apiVersion and the expand boolean are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing (e.g., what a "detailed plan" with expand=true actually returns), which lands at the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 pairs a verb ("Returns") with a resource ("request plan") and the underlying HTTP path, so the general intent is discernible. However, "request plan" is vague — it never says whether this is a provisioning/execution plan, what it contains, or how it differs from the very similarly named sibling blueprint_get_blueprint_requests_by_request_id_resources_plan.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus blueprint_get_blueprint_request, blueprint_get_blueprint_request_execution, or the near-duplicate sibling plan endpoint. The only implicit signal is the GET path, which the agent must interpret unaided.

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