blender_version_info

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

The annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds meaningful extra context: it reveals that the addon is a static copy with manual updates, and that old addon versions (pre-0.2.3) will show as unknown. This highlights limitations and operational behavior not captured by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The following two sentences efficiently add update mechanism and a known limitation without any redundant wording. Every sentence earns its place.

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 this is a simple no-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema (not shown), the description fully covers the relevant context: what it reports, why it matters, and a known edge case. There is no missing information that would hinder an agent in selecting or using the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain inputs. However, it adds valuable meaning about what the version info represents (server vs. addon) and the implications of stale versions, which enriches the schema-less parameter space. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the MCP server version vs. the installed Blender addon version'. This unambiguous phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools, all of which involve scene manipulation, rendering, or validation rather than version diagnostics.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'use this to diagnose stale-addon behavior'. It also explains the underlying update mechanism difference between the server (auto-updates via PyPI) and the addon (manual install.py + restart), giving clear context on when this tool would be relevant.

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