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 mentions the tool 'selects' objects and returns a dict with selected names, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation or modifies scene state, what happens with invalid names, if selection persists across operations, permissions needed, or side effects. For a tool with potential scene modification (selection changes viewport state), this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the core function, and the parameter explanations are necessary and non-redundant. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage but good parameter explanation in the description, plus an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is minimally complete. However, for a tool that likely modifies selection state in a 3D context (inferred from sibling tools like Blender operations), it lacks context about what 'selection' means, visual feedback, or interaction with other tools. The output schema helps, but behavioral context is light.

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 well by explaining both parameters: 'names' as 'List of object names to select' and 'deselect_others' with its default and effect ('deselect all other objects first'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints for names or what 'objects' means in this context.

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 states 'Select objects by name' which clearly indicates the verb (select) and resource (objects). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other selection-related tools (none are listed among siblings), and 'by name' is somewhat vague about what 'objects' refers to in this context (3D objects, UI elements, etc.). It's adequate but lacks specificity about the domain context.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., must be in object mode), or what happens if objects don't exist. With many sibling tools for object manipulation, this omission leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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