make_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 for behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the output as the same data Make's editor canvas displays, and details what is included (modules, parameters, filters, connections). It doesn't address side effects or permissions, but for a read-only get operation this is adequate.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the core function and content, the second adds context about the data source and a practical use case. Every word earns its place, with no filler 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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what to expect (full JSON blueprint) and why to use it. The only minor gaps are authentication or error behavior, but these are not necessary for this straightforward read operation.

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 already fully describes the single parameter scenario_id ('The scenario ID'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, which matches the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 'Get the full blueprint (JSON structure) of a Make.com scenario', a specific verb+resource pairing. It enumerates the exact contents ('every module, its parameters, filters and how modules connect'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like make_get_scenario that likely return only metadata.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to inspect exact module configuration without asking the user for screenshots.' This provides clear context, though it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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