blender_locate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states only that the tool 'resolves' an executable, but does not explain whether it searches system paths, how it handles the optional blenderPath parameter, what happens if Blender is not found, or what the return value looks like. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action ('Resolve'), with no wasted words or redundant detail.

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 tool has low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), making it feasible for the description to be complete. However, it omits crucial details: what the parameter does, what the tool returns, and error behavior. While the purpose is clear, the description is too skeletal for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a real workflow.

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 contains one parameter, blenderPath, with no description in the schema (schema coverage 0%). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to explain its purpose (e.g., whether it is an override or a hint). With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 resolves the local Blender executable, using a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('local Blender executable'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like blender_run_script and blender_verify_fbx_reimport by focusing on locating the executable rather than executing or verifying.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to the sibling tools. The phrase 'used for background automation' vaguely implies a setup/prerequisite step, but there is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical workflow placement.

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