blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists inputs but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, error handling for invalid inputs, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 an output schema (implied by Returns section), the description is complete enough for a listing tool. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format, though it could benefit from more behavioral context due to lack of annotations.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters (object_name and modifier_name) in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks details on parameter formats or constraints.

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 ('List all available inputs') on a specific resource ('geometry nodes modifier'), with explicit mention of the object and modifier parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_geometry_node_input' by focusing on listing rather than modifying inputs.

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 by specifying required parameters (object_name, modifier_name), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_object_info' or 'list_objects'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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