provider.status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a risk label ('Risk: read') and maturity level ('L1'), which slightly reinforces the annotations, but it does not disclose what the status call observes, whether it reflects live harness state, or what side effects (if any) it has. No contradiction with 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?

The description is very short and front-loads the tool identity and risk profile in two sentences. It wastes no words, though the phrase 'PartMe Blender Harness command' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and title.

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 status tool with an output schema, the return value may be self-documenting, but the description still fails to explain what 'provider status' means, what conditions warrant calling it, or how it differs from the many other status-like siblings. The presence of an output schema lowers the burden for return-value explanation, but the core semantic gap remains.

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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, with `_requestId`, `_authorization`, and `_transactionId` documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and `providerId` and `_expectedSceneRevision` remain undocumented in both the schema and description. With 60% coverage, the description does not need to fully compensate, but it also does not clarify the undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a PartMe Blender Harness command named `provider.status` and labels it as read-only, but it never states what 'provider status' actually is or what information it returns. It is distinguishable from siblings like `blender_connection_status` and `blender_production_status` only by name, not by an explicit statement of purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `blender_connection_status`, `blender_production_status`, or `blender_session_status`. It only mentions that per-request argument checks and session policy apply, which is a constraint rather than usage direction.

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