get_polyhaven_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It frames the tool as a read-only status check and mentions the return message, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authorization requirements, or failure behavior. The simple nature of the check partially compensates.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and return value are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the 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?

For a simple status-check tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and result. However, it omits any guidance on the `user_prompt` parameter and does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling integration-status tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema has one optional parameter, `user_prompt`, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its purpose and expected content completely unexplained. Since the parameter is optional and has an empty default, the impact is limited but still a real gap.

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 specific action ('Check if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender') and the expected return ('a message indicating whether PolyHaven features are available'). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling status tools by name and resource.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need to know whether PolyHaven is enabled in Blender. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among the many sibling status tools are mentioned.

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