api-report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'report' implies a read-only operation, the convoluted phrasing fails to state whether this mutates state, requires specific conditions, or returns any specific output. This is critically inadequate for a tool with no other metadata.

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 extremely brief but achieves this at the cost of clarity. It is an awkward sentence fragment where 'metadata surface' is an opaque, undefined phrase, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter structure, the description is the sole source of information, and it is grossly insufficient. The agent cannot learn what 'live Blender API operator/type metadata surface' means, what will be reported, or how this differs from the many sibling tools. Completely inadequate for any operational use.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document or clarify.

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 'Report' as a verb and 'live Blender API operator/type metadata surface' as the object, but the phrasing is grammatically ambiguous — 'surface' could be a noun or verb — and the tool's actual function remains unclear. It does not meaningfully distinguish this from sibling report tools like particles-report or mesh-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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. With dozens of sibling tools, the lack of any usage context or exclusions leaves the agent to guess.

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