blender_get_outliner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose behavioral traits — 'token-efficient' output and the fields included (names, types, visibility) — and 'Returns' implies a read-only operation. However, it omits the depth-limiting behavior (max_depth defaults to 4, silently truncating the hierarchy), which is meaningful for interpreting results.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; little waste. Minor filler in 'if specified,' and the third sentence partly restates what the output schema already enumerates.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description adequately covers purpose and content. It falls short on max_depth semantics and on routing guidance against ten sibling tools, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains collection_name's effect (filtering the hierarchy by collection) but says nothing about max_depth, which controls traversal depth and therefore what the agent actually receives. Half the parameters are semantically explained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a token-efficient hierarchy of collections and objects in the current Blender scene.' An agent can distinguish it from blender_get_scene_info and blender_inspect_object by the outliner/hierarchy scope, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'Filters by collection_name if specified' describes a parameter effect rather than a usage condition, and the agent is left to infer that this is the broad-overview tool versus the object-level siblings.

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