project-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. The word 'Report' implies a read-only action, but the description does not explicitly state whether calling it modifies state, what 'detected' means, or whether the tool can be expensive or dependent on the current scene state.

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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's scope in just a few words.

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 tool has no parameters and minimal structure, so the description is the only source of information. It identifies two report categories ('Blender project state' and 'project editor areas') but does not specify exactly what information is returned, how the state is presented, or what 'active or detected' means, leaving a notable gap.

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 contains zero parameters, so there are no parameter details to cover. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description at least clarifies what the tool reports even though it does not need to describe individual parameters.

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 ('Report') and names the resources ('Blender project state' and 'project editor areas'). It is clear enough, but does not sharply distinguish itself from sibling project-related report tools such as project-files, project-settings, or scene-info.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states the general purpose but does not mention exclusions, priorities, or relationships to sibling tools, so an agent gets no help choosing between project-report and similar report/context tools.

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