blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying the exact return structure (a dict with named fields) and clarifying it's a read-only operation through the 'Get' verb. It doesn't mention performance implications, error conditions, or dependencies, but provides solid operational context.

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?

Perfectly structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second details the return format. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly explains what information is retrieved, specifies the return format, and provides enough context for an agent to understand when this tool applies. No annotations are needed for this straightforward operation.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description explicitly states there are no required inputs by omission, adding value beyond the empty schema. It doesn't need to explain parameters that don't exist.

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 specific action ('Get full scene information') and enumerates the exact data returned (object tree, hierarchy, counts, frame range, fps, render engine). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_object_info' by focusing on comprehensive scene-level metadata rather than individual object details.

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 usage when full scene metadata is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_scenes' (which likely provides only scene names) or 'get_object_info' (for object-specific data). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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