status

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the returned fields, the meaning of the two staleness flags and the remedy for each, and the failure mode when Blender is unreachable. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a no-annotation tool.

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 imperative "Call it first" is front-loaded, and the remaining two sentences pack return contents, flag interpretation, and the offline case with no filler. Every clause 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers what it returns, how to interpret the diagnostic flags, and what happens on failure. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add beyond the schema baseline. A 4 is the correct baseline for a parameterless tool; nothing in the description is needed or missing here.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports (Blender version, add-on version, open file, scene object count, server toolsets) and adds the stale-detection semantics, so its purpose is unmistakable. No sibling tool overlaps with a diagnostics/environment-report role, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

"Call it first" is an explicit invocation ordering, and the description further tells the agent what action each result implies (restart the MCP server vs. restart Blender). That is actionable when-to-use guidance plus result-driven next steps, not mere implication.

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