BlenderMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get a list') but doesn't describe how the list is returned (e.g., format, pagination), error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another detailing parameters. It's front-loaded with the core function. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameter details).

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the parameter but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'asset_type' and provides its possible values (hdris, textures, models, all), which adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal title. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of 'all' or default behavior, keeping it at a baseline 3.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of categories for a specific asset type on Polyhaven'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_polyhaven_assets' by focusing on categories rather than assets themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other category-related tools if any existed, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 prerequisites, context for selecting asset types, or compare with sibling tools like 'search_polyhaven_assets' which might overlap in functionality. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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