blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool selects and centers the viewport, which implies a read-only navigation action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it changes selection state permanently, requires specific viewport modes, has side effects on other objects, or what 'Confirmation dict' contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief explanation and parameter/return details. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter semantics, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Confirmation dict' contains, potential errors (e.g., if the object doesn't exist), or how this tool interacts with the viewport or other operations. For a navigation tool in a complex 3D environment, more context is needed.

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 description adds minimal semantics: it states 'object_name: Name of the object to focus on,' which is slightly more informative than the schema's title 'Object Name.' However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this doesn't fully compensate—it lacks details like format constraints or examples. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter structure, but the description adds limited value.

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's purpose: 'Frame/focus the viewport on a specific object' and 'Selects the object and uses View Selected to center the viewport on it.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'select_objects' or 'get_object_info', which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the object must exist in the scene), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'select_objects' or 'set_camera_from_view'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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