blender_list_operators

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 covered. The description adds that results include operator descriptions and optionally exact property names, types, enums, and defaults, which hints at the returned information. It does not mention truncation via limit, filtering semantics, or response variations, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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 efficient sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and its optional depth, the second gives immediate usage guidance. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 discovery tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and 5 parameters at only 20% schema coverage, the agent is left without clarity on how query and category filter results, and whether the default limit of 100 could silently omit operators.

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 only 20%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the include_properties behavior ('optionally their exact property names'), while limit, query, and category semantics are left entirely to inference. An agent would not know how query matches, what categories exist, or how limit affects results.

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 ('Discover') and names a concrete resource ('bpy.ops operators available in this Blender build'). It also differentiates itself from the main sibling by stating it is meant to be used before calling blender_run_operator. It does not explicitly differentiate from blender_search_api, but the purpose is still precise and 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 gives clear context: 'Use this to find the right operator before calling blender_run_operator.' This tells an agent when in the workflow the tool belongs. It does not provide exclusions or compare against alternative lookup tools like blender_search_api, so it stops just short of a 5.

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