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 'Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't specify details like error handling, latency, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose ('Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender') followed by the return behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return value, but lacks context on integration specifics, error cases, or how it fits with siblings. For a status-check tool, more details on what 'enabled' entails would improve completeness, but it meets the baseline for simple tools.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is given for zero-parameter tools when the schema is fully covered, as it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 what the tool does ('Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender') with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('PolyHaven integration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_hyper3d_status' or 'get_sketchfab_status' by specifying the PolyHaven context. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_object_info' or 'get_scene_info' might also check statuses), so it's not a perfect 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 (e.g., whether Blender must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_hyper3d_status' or 'get_sketchfab_status'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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