blender_describe_object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating safe non-destructive operation. The description adds substantive behavioral details about what data is returned (topology stats, materials, modifiers, constraints, etc.), providing value beyond the 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 concise (two sentences plus a succinct example), front-loads the key purpose and data returned, and contains no extraneous information.

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 description covers the tool's capabilities comprehensively for a read-only inspection tool, listing all major data categories returned. With an output schema present, the description provides sufficient high-level context for an agent to understand the tool's functionality and usage.

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 two parameters (name, format) with basic descriptions ('Object name to inspect', 'Output format'). The tool description does not add further semantic meaning to these parameters; the example only demonstrates the 'name' parameter. Given low schema coverage, the description does not fully compensate.

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 performs a 'deep inspection of a single object' and enumerates specific attributes like topology stats, modifiers, constraints, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_object_get_info (likely lighter) and blender_describe_hierarchy (hierarchy-focused).

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 illustrative example ('Inspect 'Cube' to check its polygon count and applied modifiers'), which implies a typical use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as when a quick summary suffices.

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