get_addon_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states that an outdated addon triggers update instructions, tells the user to restart/re-enable, and explains that telemetry_consent can be on, off, or null if Blender cannot be reached. It stops short of labeling the operation as read-only, but the wording implies a check with no mutation.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose before adding update instructions and telemetry guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 one-parameter optional tool with an output schema, the description covers the version check, update path, and telemetry edge case. The only notable gap is the undocumented user_prompt parameter, but its optional nature lessens the impact.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the single user_prompt parameter. An agent gets no guidance on what to supply, whether it shapes the request, or how it interacts with version/telemetry checks.

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 opens with a precise action and resource: checking whether the connected Blender addon matches the MCP server version. It also introduces telemetry_consent, which separates it from the other provider-status siblings such as get_polyhaven_status or get_hyper3d_status.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to answer telemetry status questions.' It does not provide when-not-to-use directions or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over unrelated status tools.

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