blockbench_quality_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as scoring quality, which suggests a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that the model is not modified, nor does it mention any permissions, side effects, or other behavioral traits beyond the action itself.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and lists key criteria. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format (e.g., numeric score, structured report). It states 'score the active model's art quality' but does not describe the output structure, leaving ambiguity. With one parameter and low complexity, this gap is notable.

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 schema has one parameter (profile) with an enum of generic, pet, weapon, golem. The description mentions 'professional weapon, pet, and golem packs' but does not explain the impact of each profile or how to choose. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by hinting at the profiles but lacks explicit guidance.

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 scores the active model's art quality, listing specific evaluation criteria (silhouette layering, semantic naming, etc.) and referencing professional packs. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like blockbench_audit_model or blockbench_create_rig.

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 the tool is used for evaluating art quality against professional standards but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., blockbench_audit_model) or when not to use it. Usage context is only implied by the listed criteria.

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