make_get_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool retrieves a JSON structure equivalent to Make's editor canvas, which conveys that it is a read operation and what the output represents. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or potential size, but for a simple GET-style tool this is acceptable and goes beyond a bare 'get' statement.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and uses two sentences to convey both what the tool returns and its practical use case. No word is wasted, and the canvas analogy effectively sets expectations without digression.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the return value contains (modules, parameters, filters, connections) and its relationship to Make's editor. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect, without needing additional structured fields.

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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, scenario_id, is properly described as 'The scenario ID' in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., how to locate it), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full blueprint of a Make.com scenario'), and goes beyond a simple label by detailing what the blueprint contains (modules, parameters, filters, connections). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like make_get_scenario or make_update_blueprint by focusing on the complete module graph as rendered by Make's own editor.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use it to inspect exact module configuration without asking the user for screenshots.' This implies a specific use case (inspecting configuration) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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