blueprint_list_blueprint_requests

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing — not pagination behavior, default sort (updatedAt DESC), result size defaults, nor what a "blueprint request" represents. The only extra content is the raw endpoint path, which discloses no 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?

The description is two short lines with the purpose front-loaded, so there is no bloat. The second line is a raw HTTP path that adds little value for an agent already given the annotations title, but it is harmless rather than wasteful.

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 ten optional filter/pagination parameters, no output schema, and a domain concept (blueprint requests, i.e., deployment requests generated from blueprints) that is not explained, the description is too thin. It should say what a blueprint request is, what the default ordering returns, and how includePlan/deploymentId narrow 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 all ten parameters (top, page, size, skip, sort, select, orderby, apiVersion, includePlan, deploymentId) are documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description compensates with nothing — it does not clarify the overlap between top/skip and page/size or the two competing sort parameters (sort vs. orderby).

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Lists blueprint requests") and the HTTP path reinforces the resource identity. It is clear what the tool does, but there is no differentiation from the many sibling blueprint read tools such as blueprint_get_blueprint_request, blueprint_list_blueprints, and 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for retrieving a single request or listing blueprints instead. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the bulk-enumeration variant.

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