export_blueprint

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

With no annotations (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description provides necessary behavioral context: it captures (reads) buildings, requires explored area, respects a size limit, and produces a specific output format (string with counts and anchor). While it doesn't mention side effects or permissions, the capture operation is non-destructive, and this is implicitly conveyed. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and limits. Every word adds value, covering scope, size constraint, output type, and additional outputs (entity counts, anchor). It's efficient without being vague.

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?

High context: 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description provides essential context (rectangle, max size, output format) but leaves gaps like label semantics and exact coordinate handling. Given the output schema covers return values, this is relatively complete, but the label and coordinate details are 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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), and the description only explains the rectangle (x1,y1) to (x2,y2) but doesn't clarify the label parameter's purpose or how they map to coordinates. It also doesn't specify the meaning of the rectangle's bounds (inclusive? in tiles?) beyond the max size. This leaves the agent to guess about label usage and coordinate system.

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 action (export), the resource (buildings in an explored rectangle), and key constraints (max 200x200 tiles) and outputs (blueprint string, entity counts, map anchor). It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like list_blueprints and import_blueprint, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 indicates this is for capturing buildings in an explored area, which is clear enough. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the 'explored rectangle' constraint and mention of building capture imply a niche that isn't covered by other tools.

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