BlenderMCP

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 mentions that the tool 'returns a list of matching assets with basic information,' which hints at read-only behavior and output format, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient for full transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details and return information. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points or examples, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or integration with siblings. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe the return format more thoroughly, but it provides a basic overview.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'asset_type' includes options like 'hdris, textures, models, all' and 'categories' is an 'optional comma-separated list of categories to filter by,' clarifying usage that the schema alone does not provide. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail all possible values or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for assets on Polyhaven with optional filtering.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('assets on Polyhaven'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'download_polyhaven_asset' or 'search_sketchfab_models'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_polyhaven_categories' or other search-related tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'search_sketchfab_models' or 'get_polyhaven_categories'. This lack of context leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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