get_addon_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the failure mode (`telemetry_consent` is null if Blender could not be reached), the outdated-addon remediation path, and that '(Premium)' sources don't consume the user's own API keys. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior, which is the only notable omission.

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 core purpose and the 'call once at the start' instruction are front-loaded, and each subsequent paragraph covers a distinct concern (field meanings, Premium upsell, update remediation, telemetry). The Premium marketing sentence with a referral URL is the one line that is less about tool selection than promotion.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still adds semantic value by explaining what `telemetry_consent` means and when it is null. The only gap is the unexplained `user_prompt` parameter; otherwise an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

There is one optional `user_prompt` parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so it fails to compensate for the gap. The parameter is optional with an empty default and likely a passthrough, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than lower.

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 and resource ('Check the connected Blender') and enumerates exactly what is reported: version, addon/server match, libraries, generators, telemetry consent. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mapping `libraries` to search_assets sources and `generators` to generate_3d providers.

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?

'Call it once at the start' gives a clear invocation point, and the libraries/generators mapping tells the agent which downstream tools depend on this output. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., repeated polling), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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