info-messages

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. 'Return' implies a read operation, but it does not explain what 'Info editor report messages' contain, how 'exposed by Blender RNA' limits availability, or whether there are any side effects or permissions. The description is too thin to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to parse quickly, though the vague 'when exposed by Blender RNA' tail could be clearer.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the return format, filtering behavior, or what 'exposed by Blender RNA' means, which leaves important gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 single 'limit' parameter is well documented in the schema with a title, default, and minimum, so the description adds little here. However, since schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not explicitly mention or explain the limit parameter, missing a chance to add context about how limiting works in practice.

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 ('Return') and resource ('Info editor report messages'), which clearly states the tool's core function. The qualifier 'when exposed by Blender RNA' adds scope but is somewhat opaque. It is distinct enough from siblings like info-report, though it could differentiate more explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as info-report. There are no stated use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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