recipe

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavior beyond that: it runs with Blender closed, an unknown topic errors and lists topics, and omitting topic returns a one-line-per-topic list. That is useful operational context not derivable from the structured fields.

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 in the first clause, then usage triggers, then parameter behavior, then the offline note. The mid-sentence enumeration of task kinds is long but each item earns its place as a trigger condition.

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?

A read-only lookup with no output schema, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains both return shapes (topic list vs. rules + recipe) and the error case. Nothing critical is missing for an agent deciding to call it.

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% for the single topic parameter, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: no topic lists topics, a valid topic returns universal rules plus that recipe, and an invalid topic errors with the topic list. The only gap is that it never hints at topic naming/format.

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 resource and its content precisely: a step-by-step recipe giving the tool calls in order, the numbers to check, and the known traps. This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which are all Blender action primitives rather than guidance lookups.

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 enumerates the task kinds that should trigger a call (character from reference images, hard-surface prop, weapon from ortho sheet, scene from perspective photo, level blockout, materials/final render, game export). It gives a strong 'when', but no explicit 'when-not' or named alternative.

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