blueprint_get_blueprint_version_inputs_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the REST path, giving a small amount of context about the underlying resource hierarchy but nothing about return format or error 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 lines, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the endpoint. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint line largely duplicates information already implied by the title and annotations.

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-only retrieval with a fully described schema and complete annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. Without an output schema, it could have said more about what the returned inputs schema looks like or how it relates to the blueprint-level variant, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents blueprintId, version and apiVersion. The description's path template reinforces which parameters are path-scoped, but adds no syntax, format or constraint details beyond that baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('blueprint version inputs schema'), making the operation identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling blueprint_get_blueprint_inputs_schema, which differs by being blueprint-level rather than version-scoped.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the related blueprint_get_blueprint_inputs_schema or blueprint_get_blueprint_version. The agent must infer the version-scoped use case from the endpoint path alone.

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