blender_python_env

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the report contains (interpreter, sys.path, script paths, importability), giving agents a clearer picture of what to expect without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the tool's output scope; the second gives a crisp usage directive. Both earn their place, and the most essential information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and a clear read-only nature. The description explains what it reports and when to use it. It doesn't elaborate on the output structure, but the response_format parameter hints at json vs markdown, and for a report tool this is sufficient. No critical missing information for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters (modules, response_format) fully documented. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it aligns with the 'modules' parameter by mentioning importability. Since the schema carries the load, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and exact resources: Blender's interpreter, sys.path, script paths, and module importability. This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like blender_list_packages or blender_install_package, which deal with package management rather than environment introspection.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Use it before relying on a library.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique purpose among siblings, the guidance is sufficient—the agent knows to call this ahead of library-dependent operations.

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