open_blend

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not mention side effects (e.g., replacing the current scene, potential loss of unsaved changes, or loading the UI). This lack of transparency about the tool's impact is a significant gap.

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, short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it lacks structured information about parameters or behavior, which would be expected for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Given that opening a .blend file can have significant implications (e.g., replacing the current scene, loading UI elements), the description is severely incomplete. There is no mention of output, return values, or side effects, and no output schema is provided, leaving the agent without essential context for successful invocation.

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 schema lists two parameters (path and load_ui) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters do, their expected formats, or their defaults, leaving the agent without essential information to call the tool correctly.

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 states the specific action (open) and target (.blend file), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like list_lights or apply_modifier. However, it could be more explicit about the context (e.g., loading a scene in Blender) to fully disambiguate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., import_file or append_from_blend). The description offers no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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