frame_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states nothing about what happens when the tool is called, whether it modifies state, its side effects, or any requirements. With zero description, the agent has no information about runtime behavior.

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?

While the text is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It provides no substance or structure, so it fails to earn its place as a useful description. A placeholder like 'Blender Studio Pro MCP: frame_all' is not effective communication.

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 the tool's apparent simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of many sibling tools with similar names, a complete description should at least clarify its scope and differentiate it from alternatives. The description offers nothing, leaving the agent unable to determine when to invoke it or what to expect.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Schema coverage is effectively 100% because the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or misleading information, though it also adds no value.

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 is exactly the tool name with a prefix ('Blender Studio Pro MCP: frame_all'), providing no information about what the tool does. It is a tautology that restates the name without any verb, resource, or effect. The agent cannot distinguish it from similar siblings like frame_selected or frame_selected_objects.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like frame_selected and frame_selected_objects exist, but the description does not mention them or any conditions for selection. The agent is left to guess.

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