blender_get_object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of what is returned (transforms, hierarchy, materials, etc.), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose details like whether the object must exist, what happens if the name is not found, or whether the world matrix is computed or stored. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the data categories. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.

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 inspection tool with annotations covering safety and a clear list of returned data categories, the description is largely complete. The main gap is the lack of error behavior (e.g., what happens if the object name does not exist) and any note about performance or large scenes. However, given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 50%: the 'name' parameter has no description beyond its title, while 'response_format' has a description. The tool description does not add meaning to the 'name' parameter beyond implying it identifies the object. The 'response_format' parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description compensates somewhat by listing what data is returned, but it does not clarify the format or constraints of the 'name' parameter (e.g., exact name vs. partial match).

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('one object'), and enumerates the exact categories of data returned: transforms, hierarchy, materials, modifiers, constraints, mesh statistics, custom properties, and world matrix. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_list_objects (which lists objects) and blender_get_scene (which gets scene-level data).

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 this is the tool to use when you need comprehensive object data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like blender_list_objects, blender_get_scene, or blender_analyze_mesh. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing, though the scope ('one object') and the data categories provide some implicit guidance.

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