download_sketchfab_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool downloads and imports (implying mutation), scales models to target_size, requires access rights, and returns import details. It misses some behavioral aspects like error handling or rate limits, but covers core functionality adequately for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by scaling details, then parameter explanations with examples, and finally return and access info. It could be slightly more concise by integrating examples more tightly, but overall, each sentence adds value without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (download, import, scaling), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, parameters with semantics, behavioral traits, and return details. It lacks explicit error cases or output structure specifics, but for a tool with these constraints, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'uid' is a unique identifier for the model, and for 'target_size', it clarifies it's required, in Blender units/meters, defines it as the largest dimension's size, and provides concrete examples with context (e.g., 'Chair: target_size=1.0'). This thoroughly documents both 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('download and import') and resource ('a Sketchfab model by its UID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_sketchfab_models' (which finds models) or 'get_sketchfab_model_preview' (which retrieves previews). It also mentions scaling behavior, adding specificity beyond basic download.

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 clear context for usage: it specifies that the model must be downloadable with proper access rights, and it implicitly contrasts with siblings by focusing on import rather than search or preview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., vs. 'import_generated_asset') or list exclusions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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