get_polyhaven_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the tool returns a message indicating availability, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or response format. For a simple read-only check, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two short, clear sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and directly communicates the purpose and return value.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple operation, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could optionally mention that it is a lightweight query, but is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, as the description cannot add parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks PolyHaven integration status in Blender, with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('PolyHaven integration'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_polyhaven_asset or search_polyhaven_assets, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied as a preliminary check before using other PolyHaven features, but no explicit guidance is given. A sentence like 'Use this before downloading assets to verify availability' would improve clarity.

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