get_polyhaven_status

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

The description discloses that it returns a message indicating feature availability, which offers some transparency about output. However, with no annotations provided, it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, requires Blender to be running, or has any side effects. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a brief note on the return value. Every word earns its place; there is no unnecessary detail or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-check 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?

The description sufficiently explains the tool's core function and return type, which is adequate for a simple status check. However, it is incomplete because it does not address the optional parameter, and it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling status tools. Given no annotations or output schema, more clarity on the parameter and when to use the tool would be needed for full completeness.

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 schema has one parameter (user_prompt) with no description in the schema, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema coverage and no compensation in the description, the agent has no information about what 'user_prompt' is for or how to use it, making parameter semantics essentially absent.

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 the tool's function: 'Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('PolyHaven integration'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling status tools like get_sketchfab_status and get_hunyuan3d_status by naming the specific integration.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, recommended order (e.g., before searching assets), or exclusions. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear decision-making support.

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