get_sketchfab_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the tool returns a message about availability, which is the core behavior, but does not disclose side effects, errors, or any additional behavioral nuances. This is minimally 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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and adds no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple status check tool, the description provides the essential return value and purpose. However, the undocumented parameter and lack of detail about the message format (no output schema) mean the description does not fully equip the agent to call the tool correctly, especially regarding what to pass for user_prompt.

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 a default but no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its purpose and usage completely undefined. This is a severe gap in parameter semantics.

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') and clear resource ('Sketchfab integration in Blender'), and clarifies the return value. The 'status' tool is distinct from sibling tools like search_sketchfab_models or download_sketchfab_model, so differentiation is clear.

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 clearly implies use for verifying whether Sketchfab features are available before using other Sketchfab tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it lacks the explicit exclusions for a perfect score.

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