blender_settings_report

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 well covered. The description adds useful scope about what is inspected, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output size, performance, or access requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a useful inventory of coverage. There is a small redundancy between 'Report what the project is actually set to' and 'This is the answer to what are the current settings', which keeps it from being maximally crisp.

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 report with two optional, fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape or potential output size, but response_format and groups are already handled by the schema.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description enriches the 'groups' parameter by detailing what the scene/render/data/preferences/files/handlers categories actually include (Cycles, EEVEE, datablock counts, handlers, etc.). It adds value beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 ('Report what the project is actually set to') and enumerates concrete coverage areas: scene, render configuration including Cycles/EEVEE and colour management, datablock counts, preferences, paths, libraries, and handlers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling reporting tools like render_report or material_report.

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 phrase 'This is the answer to what are the current settings' gives a clear prompt-to-tool mapping and tells an agent when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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