get_blendfile_summary_missing_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by listing the categories of external references checked, but does not go beyond that. It does not describe any side effects, performance implications, or return structure, though these may be covered by the output schema. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core action and resource ('Report external file references that are missing from disk') and adds a parenthetical list of examples. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It conveys the purpose and scope. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or edge cases (e.g., whether linked libraries are included), but these are not critical for a simple query tool. The output schema likely covers return details, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly does not. The empty schema is sufficient, and the description adds no conflicting information.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and a precise resource ('external file references that are missing from disk'), and lists the types of references (images, libraries, fonts, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_blendfile_summary_datablocks or get_blendfile_summary_of_linked_libraries, which address different aspects of the blend file.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name and family context make it obvious that this is for missing external files, and it does not conflict with any sibling. It lacks any mention of exclusions or specific scenarios (e.g., when to use the _for_cli variant), but the intended use is clear enough.

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