blender_diagnose

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by listing the exact categories checked and noting cost relative to full validation, though it does not describe the output/return shape.

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 short, purposeful sentences: the first front-loads the purpose with a tight list of checks, and the second gives a cost/usage comparison. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only health-check tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is checked and when to use it, but it does not explicitly describe the result format (list of issues, pass/fail summary) beyond what the response_format schema already hints at.

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 only parameter, response_format, is already fully documented in the input schema with enum values and descriptions (markdown for readable output, json for raw structured data). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific diagnostic purpose ('Quick health check on the project') and enumerates the concrete issue categories it detects (missing camera, unpacked textures, orphan datablocks, etc.). It also contrasts itself with a 'full validate', which differentiates it from the heavier validation sibling.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate: when you just want to know what is wrong, and that it is cheaper than a full validate. This gives a clear selection rule versus the validate/check siblings.

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