blender_file_open

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds that the current scene is replaced and unsaved changes are lost, which aligns with and reinforces the annotation. No additional behavioral details (e.g., authentication, rate limits) are provided, so it adds marginal value beyond the annotation.

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-loaded with the main action. It uses a clear 'Note:' for critical warnings and structured 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. However, the parameter section is incomplete, which slightly detracts from its efficiency.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description's 'Returns: Open result' is vague. The tool involves two inputs (filepath and load_ui), but the description only covers one. The critical warning about scene replacement is good, but the overall completeness is lacking given the tool's complexity. An output schema exists, so no need for return details, but parameter coverage is insufficient.

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 a nested object with two parameters (filepath and load_ui), but schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'params: File path', ignoring the load_ui parameter entirely. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions and does not explain file path formats or defaults.

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 opens a Blender file, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It differentiates from sibling tools like blender_file_save and export tools. However, it could be more specific about the optional UI loading functionality, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 warns that opening a file replaces the current scene and unsaved changes are lost, which provides crucial usage context. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., blender_file_save for saving, or other file operations), and there are no when-not-to-use instructions.

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