Get Scene Item Blend Mode

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish this as a safe read operation. The description's 'Get' is consistent with these annotations but adds zero behavioral insight beyond what annotations convey—no error handling, auth requirements, or value formats mentioned. No contradiction with annotations found.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It's an appropriately sized description for a simple getter. It loses a point because it misses the opportunity to add a useful note (like referencing the setter) that would elevate it from adequate to genuinely helpful.

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 read-only getter with strong annotations and complete schema coverage, this description is nearly adequate. However, with no output schema present, the description could have clarified the return value format (e.g., what blend mode values to expect). It's a minimum-viable description—complete but unremarkable.

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 100% with all four parameters (sceneName, sceneUuid, canvasUuid, sceneItemId) already documented in the schema. Per the rubric's baseline, this earns a 3. The description contributes nothing about parameters, but the schema fully handles it, so no deduction is warranted.

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 'Get the blend mode of a scene item' uses a specific verb+resource pattern and clearly states what it retrieves. It's clear but doesn't make any effort to distinguish itself from sibling getters (e.g., obs-get-scene-item-transform), which per the rubric maps to a 4.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, doesn't reference the setter counterpart (obs-set-scene-item-blend-mode), and gives no context about prerequisites like needing a scene item ID first. This matches 'no guidance' at score 2.

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