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 of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns a message indicating availability, which is transparent for a simple status check. It does not explicitly say 'non-destructive' or 'read-only', but the name and wording imply that, and the return behavior is disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool checks and what it returns, which is all an agent needs to select and invoke it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and the empty input schema confirms no parameters are required.

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 function: checking if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('PolyHaven integration'), and the added return message detail ('Returns a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available') makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_polyhaven_categories or search_polyhaven_assets.

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 usage context (a status check before using PolyHaven features) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is clear what the tool does, but not explicitly when to invoke it.

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