pack_images

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that images are packed 'into the blend file' implying a file modification, but does not mention whether this is permanent, increases file size, or requires external images to exist. The lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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, complete, and purposeful sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a clear action.

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 and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits any behavioral caveats (e.g., effect on existing data, irreversible changes) and does not mention whether it works on the currently loaded blend file or requires saved paths. For a file-modifying operation, this is a minor completeness 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, but none is 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 uses a specific verb 'pack' with a clear resource 'external images' and target 'into the blend file,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like load_image or list_images by focusing on the embedding action.

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 usage context is implied: the tool is used when one wants to embed external images into the blend file. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite conditions or exclusions.

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