blender_search_library

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

Annotations already communicate open-world and destructive hints, and the description adds useful context beyond them: no API key is needed for Poly Haven, and the result is a set of ids meant for blender_fetch_asset. It doesn't discuss rate limits or failure modes, but for a search tool it discloses the auth and return behavior well.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the purpose, then add the auth detail, return contract, and intended use with no redundancy. Every sentence contributes information not already obvious from the 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?

The description covers the key missing context for a tool with five optional parameters and no output schema: what the return value is and how it should be used downstream. It could also mention result formatting or limitations, but the schema and annotations already provide much of the operational envelope.

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 80%, and type, query, library, and response_format are already self-documented with enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, and `limit` remains undocumented in both schema and description, so the baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Search a free CC0 asset library') and immediately clarifies the output contract ('Returns ids you pass to blender_fetch_asset'). This clearly differentiates the tool from the fetch/download siblings and leaves little ambiguity about its role.

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?

It gives a concrete intended use case: grabbing a real HDRI or photogrammetry texture instead of hand-rolling one, and points to the correct downstream tool. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternative siblings, so it stops 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.