Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• render_previewB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, signaling a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds that it writes a PNG to a project-relative path, which clarifies the output side effect. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior (despite allow_overwrite parameter) or any dependencies on scene state, leaving room for more transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the core purpose, though the lack of additional details makes it slightly under-specifying for the tool's complexity, so it does not earn a 5.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 5 parameters, 2 required, sparse annotations, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain when to use it relative to siblings, prerequisites like an open scene, or the purpose of parameters. The agent would need to guess from the schema, which lacks descriptions.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  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 for the lack of parameter explanations. It only hints that output_path should be project-relative, but does not explain scene_path, max_width, max_height, or allow_overwrite. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no other parameter documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Render a PNG preview to a project-relative output path' clearly specifies the verb (render), the resource (PNG preview), and the destination (project-relative output path). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_blender_status and inspect_scene, which focus on status and inspection rather than rendering.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies this tool is for generating preview images, while sibling tools handle status checking and scene inspection, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The requirement that output path be project-relative is a constraint but not a usage guideline versus alternatives.

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

• get_blender_statusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'configured' and 'bundled' context, indicating the check covers configuration and adapter availability. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors such as output format or potential latency, though the output schema exists.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple no-parameter status check, the description is complete: annotations cover safety, output schema covers return values, and the description explains what is being checked. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'available' means, but overall it is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, receiving the baseline score of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is complete by default.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the function with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('configured Blender and bundled adapter availability'). It distinguishes itself from siblings (inspect_scene, render_preview) by focusing on environment readiness rather than scene operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The usage context is implied as a prerequisite check before other Blender operations, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description does not reference sibling tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions.

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

• inspect_sceneA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'without modifying it', reinforcing the safe read-only nature. It also adds the 'project-relative' scope, which informs the agent about path resolution behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read-only inspection tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and the relation of the path to the project. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or failure modes, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has no descriptions for scene_path, and the description compensates by indicating the path is a project-relative .blend file. This gives the single parameter more meaning than the schema alone, though it could be more explicit about path format or file existence requirements.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a project-relative .blend file'), and the constraint 'without modifying it' distinguishes it from mutation tools. It also differentiates from sibling tools like render_preview by focusing on inspection rather than rendering.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context (inspect a .blend file without modifying it) but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where another tool like render_preview or get_blender_status would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name.

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