blender_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-mutating (a reachability check) and lists the return contents, but it does not mention behavior on failure, response format, or whether any state is modified. 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the return-value note is directly useful to an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 nullary, low-complexity health check, the description provides the essential context: what it verifies and what it returns. There is no output schema, so the explicit return-value summary is valuable, though failure semantics are left unspecified.

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/scenario, and the schema is empty, so parameter documentation is not needed. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description 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 uses a specific verb ('Check'), names the resource ('Blender addon bridge'), and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like blender_exec or blender_viewport by framing it as a reachability probe. It also states what it returns, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'Check whether the Blender addon bridge is reachable' implies this is a health/preflight check, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. Usage context is inferable rather than directly stated.

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