open_blend_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, such as whether opening replaces the current scene, loads linked data, or modifies the file. The description is purely factual and omits critical behavioral context.

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 succinct, with two sentences and an 'Args' section. It front-loads the action and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to scan. The structure is clear and appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

While the description covers the basic action and parameters, it lacks essential context about what happens after opening the file. It does not mention whether the current scene is replaced, if there are any destructive effects, or how the file is integrated. For a file-opening tool, this is a significant gap.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so clearly: filepath is 'Path to the .blend file' and use_scripts is 'Whether to load linked scripts'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, though it could be more detailed about formats or defaults.

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 clearly states the action 'Open a .blend file' with a specific resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like import_file or merge_blend_file, so it loses a point for lacking explicit distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the parameters and provides no context about appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or 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.