get_blender_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that returned scripts carry configuration and safety notes that warrant review before running, which is meaningful non-obvious context. It omits what happens on an unknown filename (error vs empty) and whether the payload is raw source text, so the mutation-free read contract is left mostly implicit.

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?

Two short sentences with the retrieval contract front-loaded and the safety step second; no filler, no restatement of the tool name as a sentence of its own.

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 single-parameter, read-only fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the review obligation, which is most of what an agent needs. Only edge behavior on a bad filename and the return shape remain unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already states "Exact .py filename from list_blender_resources.scripts", including the exact string-matching and source list. The description's "exact filename" merely restates that constraint, adding no format, casing, or path guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Return one reusable Blender Python script by exact filename" gives a specific verb, a specific resource, and the lookup key, which cleanly separates it from list_blender_resources (enumeration) and the reference/excerpt siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 schema and description jointly imply the workflow (find filenames via list_blender_resources.scripts, then fetch one here), and "Review its configuration and safety notes before execution" supplies a genuine pre-use step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_blender_skill or get_blender_reference guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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