ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: performance constraints ('Limited to 800px max dimension for performance', 'Larger images take longer to process and transfer'), and clarifies it captures the 'current' viewport state. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, usage guidelines, performance). Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second adds constraint, third documents parameter, fourth explains returns, fifth/sixth provide usage guidelines, seventh adds performance context. No wasted words.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: explains what it does, when to use it, parameter details, return format, and performance considerations. Covers all necessary context for agent decision-making.

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 100% with the parameter fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'max_size (optional)' and repeats the range, adding minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Capture current viewport as base64 image') and resource ('current 3D viewport view'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'blender_render' (implied) by specifying it's for viewport screenshots, not high-resolution renders.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Use when' scenarios (visualizing scene state, checking results, debugging) and 'Don't use when' guidance (need high resolution renders, use Blender render instead). This clearly distinguishes when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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