import_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it directly addresses the most important behavioral concern: this tool 'Does not build,' so it is safe and non-destructive. It also adds concrete behavior by specifying the coordinate system (top-left entity at 0,0) and what data is returned. It does not cover failure modes or validation behavior, but for a decode operation this is minor.

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 entire description is two short, high-information sentences with no wasted words. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, and the exclusion is placed at the end for emphasis.

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?

The description covers the core action, the input format, output categories, and the coordinate system, and an output schema exists to define the return structure. The main missing piece is the purpose of `limit`/`offset`, but for a straightforward decode tool the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 only parameter with any semantic grounding is `string`, which the description identifies as a blueprint export string; the required input's meaning is therefore clear. However, `limit` and `offset` are not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema description coverage there is no other source explaining these pagination parameters.

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 operation ('Decode'), a specific input ('blueprint export string'), and enumerates the decoded content (entity positions, directions, recipes, item bill). It also states the coordinate origin behavior and explicitly separates itself from build actions, so an agent can distinguish it from build_blueprint and export_blueprint.

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?

It clearly marks the tool as not building, giving an explicit exclusion for construction use cases. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as build_blueprint or export_blueprint, but the decode-vs-build contrast provides sufficient context for selecting this tool for analysis rather than creation.

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