blender_quality_guidelines

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 contextual information about the content of the guidelines (what areas they cover) but does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or return format specifics. Since the bar is lower with annotations, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second enumerates the key topics covered. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides a compact, informative list without fluff. Every sentence earns its place—no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the guidelines contain and implies they are returned in a document. The response_format parameter allows markdown or json, which is enough for the agent to know how to request output. No critical information is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly, though it doesn't explicitly state that the output is a document of guidelines, which is inferred.

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 67%, with query and response_format documented in the schema but limit lacking any description. The tool description does not explain any of the parameters; it only describes the content of the guidelines. Given medium coverage, the description neither compensates nor detracts. The parameters are simple and self-explanatory (limit, query, response_format), so a baseline of 3 is reasonable.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Fetch the modelling quality guidelines the agent should follow.' It then specifies the scope (what the guidelines cover: proportions, structure, camera/lighting, texture resolution), distinguishing it from the many operational tools in the sibling list (e.g., blender_apply_modifier, blender_add_primitive). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when the agent needs to know the quality standards for generated models. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the large sibling set, this is the only tool about guidelines. The content description ('the things that actually decide whether a generated model reads as believable') gives strong contextual cues. Missing explicit 'use this instead of X' but otherwise clear.

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