blender_inspect_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspects' and the read-oriented return list clearly signal a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about behavior when the object does not exist, name matching (case sensitivity, exactness), or whether the call has any side effects.

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?

A single well-structured sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and the returned facets enumerated compactly in parentheses. Slightly list-heavy, but every element earns its place by helping the agent decide whether this tool answers its question.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not strictly need describing, yet the enumeration usefully confirms coverage. With only one required parameter and a read-only role, the description is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is error/not-found behavior and parameter format.

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?

One required parameter (object_name) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'a specific Blender object' without specifying name format, case sensitivity, or how to discover valid names. It adds a little targeting meaning but does not compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb (inspects) and a specific resource (a Blender object), then enumerates the exact facets returned: transforms, mesh statistics, modifiers, materials, constraints, hierarchy. This distinguishes it from scene-level siblings like blender_get_scene_info and blender_get_outliner without naming them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the content list — the agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs per-object detail before modifying or exporting. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over blender_get_outliner or blender_get_scene_info, and no prerequisites are given.

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