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 states it's a read operation ('List') and describes the return format ('list of dicts'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or whether it requires a specific Blender context (e.g., 3D view). It doesn't contradict annotations, but could be more informative given the absence of structured data.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the action and output format without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No waste or redundancy is present.

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, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, which aligns with the output schema. However, it could improve by adding minimal context (e.g., 'for the currently open file') or linking to siblings, but it's adequate for a straightforward list 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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on output. It adds value by specifying the return structure ('list of dicts' with 'scene name and object count'), which complements the output schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it efficiently handles the lack of inputs.

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 scenes in the current Blender file.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('scenes'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_scene_info' or 'create_scene', the action is unambiguous. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from 'get_scene_info' which might provide detailed info about a specific scene.

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 siblings like 'get_scene_info' (which might retrieve details for a single scene) or 'create_scene', nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an open Blender file. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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