get_operator_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it requires specific permissions, or how it behaves with invalid or nonexistent operator identifiers. This lack of detail is a notable gap for a tool that retrieves schema data.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the primary purpose. It is not bloated and contains no filler, but it lacks the detail needed for parameter guidance. Conciseness itself is excellent, though the sentence could have been structured to include more crucial information.

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 simplicity, the description should at least clarify what 'idname' refers to, but it does not. The output schema does not compensate for the missing input semantics. The agent is left uncertain about the required argument, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge of Blender operators.

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 input schema defines a single parameter 'idname' with no type or description (schema description coverage is 0%). The description does not explain what 'idname' should contain (presumably the operator's identifier), leaving the agent without any guidance on how to fill the required argument. This is a critical deficiency for a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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 a specific verb ('return') and resource ('RNA property schema') for any operator, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_operators (which lists all), search_operators (which searches), and call_operator (which executes). The scope is explicit, making the tool's functionality unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage—'for any operator' suggests calling this when operator schema is needed—but it provides no explicit context about when to prefer this over list_operators, search_operators, or other getters. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the decision to inference.

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