list_shape_keys

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 discloses none: it does not mention side effects, permissions, output format, or any constraints. An agent has zero behavioral insight.

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 one line, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. It adds no value and does not structure information for the agent. It is essentially empty.

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 list tool with one parameter, but the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns (even though an output schema exists), what input is expected, or how it relates to the broader shape key workflow. An agent cannot call it correctly without external knowledge.

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 has one parameter (object_name) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning to it. The agent cannot infer what object_name should be (e.g., a mesh object with shape keys) or how it is used. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of information.

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 'Blender Studio Pro MCP: list_shape_keys' which is just a prefix plus the tool name. It does not state what the tool does or what it lists. This is a tautology, providing no information beyond the name itself.

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 add_shape_key, set_shape_key_value, and remove_shape_key exist, but the description does not mention any of them or explain conditions for using list_shape_keys.

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