get_3d_cursor

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 behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about side effects, return values, permissions, or state changes. A getter is typically expected to be read-only, but the description does not confirm this.

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 description is short, it is short because it is under-specified, not because it is concise. A single sentence that merely repeats the name is not efficient; it wastes the opportunity to inform the agent. Proper conciseness would convey meaning in minimal words, which this does not.

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?

This is a simple tool (no parameters, likely just returns the 3D cursor location), but the description provides no information about its purpose or return value. With a provided output schema it might be partially covered, but the description itself is completely inadequate for an agent to understand when or why to call this tool.

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 the baseline is 4 because the schema carries nothing to explain. However, the description still fails to clarify what the tool returns or how it behaves. It doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter detail nor state the return format. Since it adds nothing, I lower from baseline.

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 essentially a verbatim repeat of the tool name prefixed by 'Blender Studio Pro MCP:'. It provides no actual information about what the tool does, what resource it acts on, or what it returns. It is a tautology with zero explanatory value.

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 like set_3d_cursor or snap_cursor_to_selected. The description does not mention any context, conditions, or exclusions.

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