basecoat_get_chart_blueprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by specifying exactly what comes back (markup, tokens, layout footprint, per-framework mount code) and that theme overrides are optional.

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 dense sentences with the stage tag and core payload front-loaded, ending with a next-step pointer. Every clause (tokens, layout, mount code) conveys content, though the enumeration is slightly heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly (markup, theme tokens, layout footprint, client options, framework mount code). Combined with 100% schema coverage and clear pipeline positioning, only auth/limits context is absent, which is minor for a read-only tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter burden including aliases and enum meanings. The description mentions 'chart blueprint ID or category' and per-framework mount code, which lightly maps to chartId and framework, but adds no syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('complete chart markup, CSS theme tokens, layout footprint, client options, and framework mount code') for a chart blueprint ID or category. The enumerated outputs make it distinguishable from basecoat_list_charts, which only lists blueprints rather than fetching their full markup.

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 '[STAGE 3: SYNTAX & STACKS]' tag and 'Next step: Call basecoat_quality_inspector' route the agent through the pipeline and imply this runs after selection. It doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name basecoat_list_charts as the prerequisite, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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