get_blender_status

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.