blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool opens an existing file (implying read/write access) and returns a dict with the path, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., loading into memory, closing previous files), permissions needed, or error handling. It adds basic context but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter constraints but lacks details on return structure (beyond 'Dict with the opened file path'), error cases, or integration with other tools (e.g., 'save_file'). It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a file operation tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'filepath' must be an 'Absolute path' and 'Must exist', which clarifies constraints not in the schema. However, it does not detail format examples or validation rules, leaving some gaps.

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 ('Open') and resource ('.blend file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'import_file', 'export_file', or 'save_file' that handle different file operations. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 context by specifying the file must be a '.blend' file and exist, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'import_file' (for non-Blender formats) or 'list_recent_files' (for selection). It provides clear prerequisites but lacks explicit comparison to siblings.

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