project.status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true; the description adds value by listing the exact data points read and noting that no 3D viewport is required. It does not contradict the annotations and gives behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists specific fields concisely. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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, read-only status tool, the description is complete. It names the exact information available, states the no-viewport condition, and safety is already covered by annotations; the output schema handles return structure.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no clarification is needed. The description's explicit list of properties confirms that the tool takes no arguments and merely reads fixed project attributes.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a well-defined resource: the current Blender project path, dirty state, generation, transaction, and most recent lifecycle operation. This clearly scopes it to project-level status and differentiates it from siblings like application.status by naming project-specific fields.

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 tool is for reading project state and explicitly notes it works without a 3D viewport, which is useful context. However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., application.status) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving usage selection partly to inference.

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