list_blend_contents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it discloses the important safety property that 'Scripts in the file are never run,' and that the file is inspected without being opened. It does not discuss error behavior for invalid/non-.blend paths, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the safety caveat, then structured Args/Returns sections with no filler. The Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it reads, that it does not execute scripts, when to call it, and the parameter contract.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully specifies the single parameter as an absolute path to an existing .blend file, adding both a format constraint and an existence preconditions the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List what another .blend file contains') plus the key qualifier 'without opening it,' which separates it from tools that inspect the currently open scene. An agent can tell it apart from list_objects/list_materials without reading the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up tool and sequencing: 'Use before link_or_append to find the names to bring in.' It does not state when not to use it (e.g. for the current file use list_objects), but the intended context is clear.

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