open_in_live_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (loading a .blend for viewing) and implies it is a non-destructive operation (loading for viewing). However, it does not specify what happens if the file doesn't exist, if the Blender session is not open, or if the file is already loaded. It also doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., replacing the current scene). A 3 is fair because it covers basic behavior but misses deeper details.

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 sentence of 16 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action ('Load a .blend'). It earns its sentence by conveying purpose and context (user's open window). No redundancy exists, but it could arguably add a bit more context (e.g., prerequisites) without significant bloat.

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 that the tool has 1 required parameter and no output schema, and the context signals indicate a simple tool, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not specify what happens upon success (e.g., visual confirmation), how errors are handled, or whether the tool requires an active Blender session (sibling 'blender_status' suggests this is relevant). The return value is not critical since no output schema exists, but the lack of error/state context is a gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the parameter, so the tool description must compensate. The description implies that 'blend_file' is the file to load, but it adds no additional details beyond the schema (e.g., file path format, supported file extensions, or whether it must be a local or relative path). Baseline is 3 given 1 parameter and 0% coverage, and the description does not elevate beyond that.

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 verb 'load' and the resource '.blend file', and specifies its purpose for the user to see it in an open Blender window. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_blend (creation) or inspect_blend (analysis), though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

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 when a user has a Blender window open and wants to see a .blend file, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., ensuring Blender is running). No exclusions or when-not-to-use statements are given.

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