blender_describe_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns indented text or JSON (via format parameter) and shows the full tree. However, it does not mention behavior like ordering, depth limits, or performance considerations, which would add value.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and output formats, and the second provides an example. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the example is somewhat generic.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter with a well-described schema and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and output options. It lacks details like ordering but is adequate for the simplicity of the tool.

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 has descriptions for the format parameter and its enum values, covering the single parameter well. The description reinforces this by saying 'as indented text or JSON', but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get the full parent-child object tree of the scene', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like blender_describe_object (single object) and blender_describe_scene (scene settings).

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 an example use case ('to understand how objects are organized and parented') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_describe_object or blender_object_get_info. No when-not conditions are given.

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