get_polyhaven_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a message about feature availability, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple, but the complete absence of parameter documentation and only a vague mention of the return message leaves gaps. The description is sufficient for a basic status check, but it does not fully cover the input semantics or the exact output format, especially given that no output schema is provided.

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 one parameter (user_prompt) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its purpose and expected value completely undocumented. This is a major gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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's purpose: checking whether PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('PolyHaven integration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_polyhaven_assets or download_polyhaven_asset.

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 should be used to verify PolyHaven availability, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The context is clear enough for a status check, but there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or when to prefer this tool over others.

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