blender_mcp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it states 'Connecting does not edit the scene' (a safety-relevant clarification), warns that include_schemas is large, and the schema documents the timeout default. It does not cover auth or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the tool_names behavior, then the safety note and sibling pointer. Little waste, though the parenthetical 'large' warning and the closing routing note slightly crowd the structure.

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 4-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation discovery tool, the description covers both operating modes, the schema-fetching path, the large-payload warning, and the correct sibling for scene checks. Only deeper behavioral detail (error handling, discovery limits) is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents connect, timeout_ms, tool_names, and include_schemas with defaults and bounds. The description adds the intent behind tool_names ('the tools you will call') but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 names a specific resource (Blender MCP configuration / remote server tools) and the two distinct actions: inspect config or connect and discover tools. It is clearly distinguishable from blender_mcp_call, but the dual-mode framing (inspect vs. connect) makes the primary purpose slightly less crisp than a single-verb statement.

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?

It gives concrete usage direction: 'pass tool_names for the full input schemas of the tools you will call' and 'use get_scene_info through blender_mcp_call to check the Blender addon,' routing the agent to a sibling for scene verification. Absent is explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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