get_polyhaven_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check if' indicates a read-only status query and suggests a boolean result, but it does not disclose what happens when Blender is not running, whether the check is local or remote, or the exact return shape. It is not misleading, just thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the operation, resource, and environment in nine words.

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?

For a zero-parameter status check, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the absence of an output schema or a stated boolean return convention, but 'Check if enabled' strongly implies a yes/no answer. It does not explain error conditions, though the tool's simplicity minimizes the risk.

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 already covers this completely at 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific check action, the PolyHaven integration resource, and the Blender context. It clearly differs from sibling status tools for other integrations (Sketchfab, Hyper3D, Hunyuan3D) by naming the distinct resource.

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 this is the status check for PolyHaven before using related PolyHaven tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when to prefer sibling status tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, leaving usage context to inference.

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