get_polyhaven_status

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 discloses that the tool 'returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available', which gives useful behavioral context about the return value. It does not mention side effects, but a status check is implicitly non-destructive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and return behavior.

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 status-check tool, the description covers the essentials: what it checks and what it returns. However, it omits any details about the user_prompt parameter and does not describe possible error conditions or output format. Given the tool's low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 has one parameter (user_prompt) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. Since the parameter is optional and undocumented, the agent has no guidance on what to pass or why. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter detail.

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 action ('Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling status checkers (e.g., get_hyper3d_status, get_sketchfab_status) by explicitly naming PolyHaven.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool checks PolyHaven availability. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative status tools, nor any exclusions. The description simply explains what it does without offering decision criteria.

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