get_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return content ('Complete blueprint details including its pipeline_config baseline'), which goes beyond a simple 'get' statement. However, it doesn't mention error behavior, authorization needs, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics beyond the verb 'Retrieve.'

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the second defines the parameter, and the third summarizes the return. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter meaning, and return value. It even adds detail about the pipeline_config baseline. It falls short of perfect by not explaining behavior for non-existent IDs or access restrictions, but given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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 schema only defines blueprint_id as a string with title 'Blueprint Id,' but the description adds 'blueprint_id: UUID of the blueprint,' clarifying the expected format and purpose. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it could specify format constraints in more detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the full configuration of a specific pipeline blueprint.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_blueprints (list all) and instantiate_blueprint (create instance), indicating a targeted retrieval operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to list_blueprints or other siblings. The usage is only implied by the word 'specific,' which is weak.

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