production.status

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description's 'Risk: read' matches those without contradicting them. It adds some extra context via 'maturity: L3' and the session/argument-check requirement, but does not explain what happens when called or what the response represents.

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 short and not bloated, but the opening phrase restates the tool name and the 'Risk: read' line duplicates the annotations. It is concise but not maximally informative, and it is not front-loaded with a functional purpose.

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 and annotations cover return shape and safety, and there are no required parameters, so invocation mechanics are simple. However, the description never explains what production.status is for or when it applies, leaving an agent to guess from the name alone.

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 documents three of four parameters clearly, and all parameters are optional harness metadata; the one undocumented parameter, _expectedSceneRevision, is reasonably self-explanatory. The description adds no per-parameter detail, but with 75% schema coverage this is an adequate, if minimal, pass.

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 mostly restates the command path (`production.status`) and attaches metadata like 'Risk: read' and 'maturity: L3', but never states what the tool actually does or what 'production status' means. It also does not distinguish this from sibling status tools such as blender_job_status, blender_session_status, or blender_connection_status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only requirement note ('Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply') is an operational caveat, not a usage condition or exclusion.

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