list_blueprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that nested books are included, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects. For a list operation this is acceptable, though not thorough.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The scope detail is front-loaded, though the phrasing is slightly elliptical ('Blueprints your character carries' lacks an explicit verb).

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 parameterless list operation with an output schema, the description adequately captures the return scope (inventory, books, nested books). It does not clarify whether other carried locations like hands are included, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed since there is nothing to document.

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 identifies a specific operation (listing the character's carried blueprints) and clearly scopes it to inventory and books, including nested books. It is distinguishable from siblings like read_blueprint or build_blueprint, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name alternative tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_inventory or read_blueprint. The description implies a lookup use case but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or scenario context.

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