recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses default behavior (no topic lists topics, one line each), topic behavior (returns universal rules plus the recipe), the error case (unknown topic errors and lists topics), and the notable state-independence fact that 'It works when Blender is closed.' It stops short of describing output format or lookup cost, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the trigger tasks, then output behavior. Dense but every sentence carries information; the ending 'It works when Blender is closed' is a slightly abrupt tack-on but still earns its place.

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 one-parameter, output-schemaless documentation tool, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, parameter behavior including the null/error paths, and the offline constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% (topic is an undescribed nullable string), so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines behavior when topic is omitted, when provided, and when invalid. It never enumerates valid topic values, which is the one gap keeping this from 5.

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?

States a specific deliverable: 'Step-by-step recipe for a task: the tool calls in order, the numbers to check and the known traps.' It is clearly a guidance/planning tool, which distinguishes it from every operational sibling (run_python, render_final, check_mesh, etc.). No ambiguity about what it returns.

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?

Explicitly says to 'Call it before a task of these kinds' and enumerates the task families (character from reference images, hard-surface prop, weapon/object from orthographic sheet, scene from perspective photo, level blockout, materials/final render, game export). This is a strong when-to-use directive absent from its siblings.

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