blender_filesystem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=falseags. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about the default restricted roots and explains that allow_anywhere is off by default because an agent that can read the whole disk is a liability. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences front-load the main action and scope, then deliver the critical usage warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only list/search tool, the description covers the default roots coordinates, the key security caveat, and relies on the schema for path/pattern/roots handling. There is no output schema, so return format details are not specified, but response_format is available in the input schema, making this adequately 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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by naming the default allowed roots and reinforcing the caution around allow_anywhere, complementing the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 ('List or search files') and the resource scope (home directory, Blender's script folders, asset cache). It is specific about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like blender_scripts_and_texts or blender_download.

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 gives a clear operational context: restricted roots by default, and explicit guidance to pass allow_anywhere only when the user has actually asked for it. It doesn't compare this tool to alternative sibling tools, but the default behavior and caution are enough for selecting it appropriately.

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