rna-describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Describe' strongly implies a non-mutating read-only operation, which is reassuring. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or describe any potential side effects (even if none exist). With no annotations, this minimal assurance yields a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then provides examples for context. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or padding.

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 one-parameter tool, the description sufficiently explains the input format. However, it does not mention what the return value looks like (e.g., a formatted text description), which would be helpful since no output schema exists. Despite this minor gap, the tool is easy to invoke correctly.

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 schema provides a title explaining the expected format ('op:<cat>.<name>' or 'type:<TypeName>'), and the description reinforces this with concrete examples. This adds clarity beyond the bare schema and leaves little ambiguity for the single 'path' parameter.

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 'Describe' with a clear resource 'Blender operator or type via RNA', and gives concrete path examples ('op:mesh.bevel', 'type:Object'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rna-search (find) or rna-call_operator (execute).

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 implies usage via path format examples, but does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives like rna-search or outliner-describe. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, making it adequate but not explicit.

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