blender_render_with_dimensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds context about the return format (isometric render plus dimensions), which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential limitations or parameter effects (e.g., how object_names filters objects), leaving some 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds useful information about what the tool does and returns.

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?

Without an output schema, the description partially explains return values ('isometric render plus dimension measurements') but omits details like units, format, and the effect of the optional object_names parameter. Given the tool's modest complexity and the presence of annotations, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%—the schema provides no descriptions for object_names. The tool description also fails to explain the parameter's meaning or how it affects output. While the parameter name 'object_names' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, so the agent is left guessing.

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 a specific action ('Render the scene') with a specific output ('bounding box dimension data for each object' and 'isometric render plus dimension measurements'). This distinguishes it from sibling render tools like blender_render_tiled or blender_render_turntable, which likely produce different output formats.

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 usage context is implied by the tool's purpose: use it when you need dimension measurements alongside a render. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other render variants (e.g., get_screenshot, render_tiled) or any exclusions, so it stays at the 'implied usage' level.

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