blender_scripts_and_texts

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 the behavioral detail that it lists both embedded Text datablocks and .py files with sizes, which is useful. It doesn't mention output format details or potential performance implications, but the annotations carry the main 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The core function is stated first, followed by the use case. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the output is a list/report, but the use case and scope are clear. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers the parameter.

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%, so the single parameter response_format is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 tool lists embedded Text datablocks and .py files in Blender's script paths, with sizes, and explicitly states its use case: finding an add-on's or script's real location. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_list_installed_addons or blender_filesystem.

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 provides a clear use case ('Use it to find an add-on's or a script's real location'), which implies when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling list.

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