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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies scene state). The return format is mentioned, but behavioral traits like pagination or error handling are omitted, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description, but overall it's efficient.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or performance considerations, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no 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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'type_filter', explaining its purpose ('Filter by object type'), providing examples (e.g., 'MESH, LIGHT, CAMERA, EMPTY'), and noting that an empty string returns all objects. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid type strings.

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: 'List all objects in the scene, optionally filtered by type.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('objects in the scene'), and scope ('optionally filtered by type'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_object_info' or 'select_objects', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions optional filtering by type but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_object_info' (for detailed info on a single object) or 'select_objects' (for selection purposes). No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit comparisons to siblings are included.

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