motion blender inspect

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

The description explicitly states the source file is unchanged and mentions background Blender, which communicates a read-only, non-destructive behavior. Combined with the readOnly and idempotent annotations, this is transparent, though it does not address error cases or return behavior.

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, focused sentence with no redundant details or filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key safety property.

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?

For a simple single-parameter inspection tool, the description covers the input, the operation, and the non-destructive nature. The output schema is noted as present, so the lack of an explicit output description is acceptable, though a brief mention of what is returned would make it more complete.

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 blendFile parameter is well documented as an absolute path to an existing saved .blend file, matching the parameter description and constraints. It conveys the required file type and path form, though it could add an example or note about permissions.

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 inspects meshes, world bounds, armatures, and bone names in a .blend file, using background Blender. This is specific and distinguishes it from other motion tools that create, animate, or export.

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 purpose is implied but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools. It does not say 'use this instead of motion_studio_inspect' or provide conditions for when to choose this tool, though the mention of saved .blend files gives some contextual guidance.

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