blender_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation checks and reports, implying a read-only action, but it does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects, nor does it describe what happens if the bridge is not running (e.g., error vs. false status). More detail on expected behavior would be helpful.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately communicates the tool's function. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 its simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and the kind of information returned ('capabilities'). It could be slightly more explicit about the output format or prerequisites, but it is largely complete for a status-checking tool.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and since the description correctly implies no inputs are required, it fully lives up to that baseline.

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 a specific verb ('check') and identifies the exact resource ('local Blender add-on bridge'), with the added purpose of reporting capabilities. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blender_import_asset or blender_scene_summary, which perform different operations.

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 implies usage as a preliminary status check before other Blender operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or exclude any cases. There is no mention of when-not to use or what other tools might be more appropriate.

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