blender_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the meaning of connected=false and the autolaunch environment variable behavior. It does not enumerate every response field, but it explains the key state the agent must react to.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place: first states what the tool does, then gives branching/next-step guidance. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or 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?

For a simple read-only status tool, the description covers the core return value (connected), the failure branches, the relationship to blender_setup, and the autolaunch option. The one parameter is fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 the single response_format parameter fully documented through its enum and description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already does the necessary work, so a 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('the Blender bridge'), plus the scope: reachability and what it is running. The phrase 'Start with this' also marks it as the entry-point diagnostic among many Blender siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 is explicit about when to use it ('Start with this') and gives concrete next steps when connected is false: call blender_setup once if the addon is missing, or set BLENDER_MCP_AUTOLAUNCH=1 to let the server start Blender. This is actionable routing behavior, not vague guidance.

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