get_blendfile_summary_of_linked_libraries_for_cli

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state read-only behavior. It adds a useful behavioral detail by mentioning 'opening *blend_file* in background Blender', indicating a headless/CLI execution context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or limitations (e.g., file size constraints, required Blender installation). With annotations covering the safety profile, 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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and parameter. Every word serves a purpose, and it avoids redundancy with the tool name. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not explain what kind of linked-library information is returned (e.g., paths, versions, dependencies). It also fails to clarify the distinction from the non-CLI sibling or any prerequisites (e.g., Blender must be installed). Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in usage context.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does by referencing '*blend_file*' and stating it is the file to open. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema title 'Blend File'. However, it does not specify expected format (e.g., absolute path), file extension, or validation rules. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves some ambiguity.

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 clear action ('Return linked-library info') and specifies the resource (blend_file). The name adds the 'for_cli' qualifier, which helps differentiate from the non-CLI sibling, though the description itself does not explicitly mention CLI context. It distinguishes the specific aspect (linked libraries) from other summary tools like datablocks or missing_files.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that the '_for_cli' variants are for headless/background operation, nor does it suggest when to prefer this over the non-CLI version or other summary tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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