get_sketchfab_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('a message') and the nature of the check (availability), but it does not describe the user_prompt parameter or any potential side effects. Since this is a read-only status operation, the lack of explicit safety disclosure is partially mitigated by the verb 'Check,' but the unexplained parameter creates a transparency gap.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the return behavior. Every word earns its place—no redundancy, no fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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 basic behavior and return value. However, the presence of an unexplained parameter and the absence of an output schema or annotations mean the description leaves gaps. An agent would not know what to pass as user_prompt or what the exact message format is, so the context is not fully complete.

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% and the lone parameter 'user_prompt' has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description provides zero value in clarifying what this parameter does or how it relates to checking status. This is a critical miss for a parameter with no other documentation.

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 action ('Check if Sketchfab integration is enabled in Blender') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling status checkers (e.g., get_polyhaven_status, get_hyper3d_status) by naming the Sketchfab integration explicitly. The return value is also specified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: when you need to determine if Sketchfab features are available before using them. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the simple nature of a status check and the distinct sibling names, the guidance is sufficient.

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