BlenderMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns a formatted list of matching models' which gives some output information, but doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'formatted' means. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted parameter list. Each bullet point is concise and informative. The final sentence about return values is appropriately brief. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information.

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 complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks important context about search behavior, result formatting, limitations, and integration with sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally say more about what 'formatted list' contains, but it provides the minimum for basic usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing clear explanations for all 4 parameters. It explains what each parameter controls (search text, categories filter, result count limit, downloadable filter), specifies defaults for 'count' and 'downloadable', and clarifies that 'categories' is comma-separated. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 as 'Search for models on Sketchfab with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('models on Sketchfab'), and scope ('with optional filtering'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'download_sketchfab_model' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_polyhaven_assets' beyond the platform name.

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 when this search tool should be preferred over other search tools like 'search_polyhaven_assets' or when to transition from search results to download actions. 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.