List blueprints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the required auth scope (read:pro:blueprints) and clarifies a common confusion about the scope prefix vs. URL segment, adding useful behavioral context.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the scope clarification is concise and relevant.

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 list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the resource, tenant, and required permission. It could optionally mention return format, but this is not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter-specific description is needed. The schema is empty and description provides no parameter details, but the baseline for zero params is 4, and this description does not attempt to compensate for undocumented params because none exist.

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 clearly states the tool lists Blueprints for the configured tenant, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like findDevices or getFleetOverview, but the resource name is unique enough.

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 description provides context about the tenant and required scope but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope requirement.

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