status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description clears it by disclosing non-obvious behavior: it compares server tools against add-on handlers to produce staleness verdicts, and it reports Blender's install location when unreachable. These are actionable traits absent 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?

Four compact sentences with the imperative 'Call it first' front-loaded. The middle sentence is a dense comma list of returned fields, but each item is load-bearing; little could be removed without losing diagnostic meaning.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description carries the remaining burden and does so: it names what is returned and interprets the two staleness outcomes. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly 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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add on parameter semantics.

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 returns (Blender version, add-on version, open file, scene and object count, server toolsets) and adds a diagnostic role (server_is_stale / addon_is_stale). That is a specific verb+resource, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling job_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a generic 'status' tool.

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" gives an unambiguous ordering instruction, and the description goes on to state what each diagnostic result means and what action to take (restart the MCP server vs restart Blender). The when-to-use condition is explicit rather than inferred.

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