BlenderMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., object type, location, materials), whether it's read-only, potential errors (e.g., if the object doesn't exist), or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably queries scene data.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a concise parameter explanation. There's no redundant or verbose language, and every sentence adds value. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (querying a specific object) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but misses behavioral details like return format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. Without output schema, it should ideally hint at what information is returned.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'object_name: The name of the object to get information about.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema has no descriptions), this compensates well by explaining what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format examples or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity).

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific object in the Blender scene.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('object in the Blender scene'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scene_info' beyond the object-specific focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_scene_info' (which might provide broader scene information) or other object-related operations. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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