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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the return type ('List of file path strings'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or how 'recent' is defined (e.g., time range or count). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that accesses system preferences.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear return statement. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and returns more distinctly).

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and return format, yet lacks behavioral context (e.g., how 'recent' is determined) that would be helpful for an agent, especially without annotations. This makes it just sufficient but not comprehensive.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('recently opened files from Blender preferences'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_objects' or 'list_scenes' beyond the resource type, which prevents 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or context for accessing Blender preferences, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.

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