get_chart_blueprint

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description usefully adds that this is an alias of another tool and enumerates the return payload (markup, CSS theme tokens, client options) — valuable given there is no output schema — but it says nothing about whether the alias is functionally identical to the basecoat tool or about defaults/resolution behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the action/return value is front-loaded after a compact stage tag. The bracketed stage prefix is opaque internal jargon that consumes space without informing the agent, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 does the necessary work of naming the return payload, and the thorough input schema covers all 8 optional parameters. The remaining gap is that it never clarifies the alias's relationship to or difference from basecoat_get_chart_blueprint, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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%, including detailed alias documentation for id/name/componentId and enum values, so the baseline is 3. The description only obliquely references parameters via 'CSS theme tokens' (themeTokens) and 'client options' and adds no syntax, defaulting, or precedence rules beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource — 'Retrieve complete chart markup, CSS theme tokens, and client options' — and identifies itself as an alias of basecoat_get_chart_blueprint, which tells the agent exactly which underlying capability it maps to. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other chart-adjacent siblings such as list_charts or get_component_html beyond the alias note.

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 only usage signal is the '[STAGE 3: SYNTAX & STACKS]' prefix and the alias declaration, which imply placement in a workflow but never state when to call this instead of basecoat_get_chart_blueprint or when a chart must first be listed. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given.

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