Blender MCP connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not required to repeat safety. It adds context about 'plugin-owned MCP adapter' and 'live guarded Harness session', which clarifies the exact scope of the check without contradicting annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status check with a rich annotation profile and an output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool checks. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; the scope and purpose are unambiguous.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; the schema is empty and coverage is 100%, making this a no-op dimension.

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 a specific verb (check) and a specific resource (connection status of the plugin-owned MCP adapter to a live guarded Harness session). It distinguishes this tool from sibling status tools like blender_session_status by focusing on the connection/adapter reachability rather than session state.

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 implies usage as a diagnostic for connection reachability, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives such as blender_session_status or blender_production_status. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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