bl_status

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 transparently discloses a significant behavioral side-effect: calling this tool syncs the session, making Blender's loaded project the authority and causing ifc_open to refuse opening different files. This is critical behavioral detail beyond a simple status check. It also warns about potential version mismatch issues. The description goes beyond a simple status report to explain the side effects and underlying risk, which is excellent. However, it doesn't mention output format (but output schema exists). Minor deduction for not describing side effects on other tools beyond ifc_open (e.g., what happens if no project is loaded).

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 well-structured into three paragraphs: first, what status it returns; second, the version comparison and why it matters; third, the session synchronization side-effect. Each paragraph adds distinct value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wordiness; every sentence contributes.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (status check + version comparison + session sync), the description covers all major aspects. The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The side-effect on other tools is explained, but one might want to know what happens if no project is loaded (does it sync?) or if Blender is unreachable (does it time out?). The timeout parameter is not explained, but its default is given. Overall, quite complete for a status tool with significant side effects.

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 only parameter is 'timeout' with a default of 30. The schema provides the name, type, default, but no description. The description does not mention timeout at all. However, since timeout is a common parameter for network operations, the schema itself (name and default) gives enough context. The description covers 0% of the parameters, but since there is only one self-explanatory parameter, the gap is minimal. Given 1 parameter, the description could have mentioned it, but the schema's 'timeout' with default 30 is fairly clear. Score 4 because it's still a useful parameter but self-explanatory by name.

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 what the tool does: reports whether Blender is reachable, which Bonsai and ifcopenshell versions it runs, and which IFC file is open. It also explicitly compares ifcopenshell builds and warns about mismatches. This is specific, uses a clear verb ('whether', 'compares', 'warns'), and distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on status and session synchronization.

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 explains when this tool is relevant: it is useful to check status before operations and it explicitly mentions the session synchronization effect—that once Blender loads a project, it becomes authoritative and affects other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need to verify environment consistency' or 'don't use this if you just need file info'—but the context implies it. No direct alternatives are named, but the sibling tools are evident. Slight deduction for not explicitly stating when not to use it.

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