rna.describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or access requirements. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated. Only the mechanism ('via RNA') is mentioned, which is insufficient for an agent to understand risks or constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and provides two specific examples. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no unnecessary 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 description explains the input format but fails to describe the output, which is critical since no output schema exists. The tool returns a description, but an agent would benefit from knowing whether it returns a string, JSON, or other structure. For a low-complexity tool, this omission is noticeable.

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 parameter 'path' is explained with examples and format ('op:<cat>.<name>' or 'type:<TypeName>'), which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal title field. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates with clear usage patterns.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'Describe a Blender operator or type via RNA' with concrete examples ('op:mesh.bevel', 'type:Object'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like rna.search and rna.call_operator by specifying the action of describing rather than searching or calling.

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 for getting descriptions of operators or types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rna.search for searching, capabilities.describe for general capabilities). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The examples help but are not comprehensive.

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