blender_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It gives no indication of side effects, permissions needed, or whether the tool only reads state without modification. The tool is named 'blender_status' and described as a report, but the description does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or safe to call.

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 short sentence that lists the key items reported. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be more precise (e.g., 'Lists the current Blender status' instead of 'Report').

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It only mentions what aspects it reports (install, folder, state, templates, materials) but not the format or structure of the output. For a status tool with no parameters, this leaves significant ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 has 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so no additional description is needed for parameters. The description adds meaning by listing what the tool reports, which is helpful despite the lack of 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 states it reports Blender install, output folder, live-bridge state, templates, and materials. This is a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('Blender status'), but it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like inspect_blend or apply_material, making it merely adequate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose blender_status over similar status-reporting or inspection tools, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or context for its use.

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