ClaudeKit Blender MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating 'Performance: Fast operation, minimal performance impact' and clarifying the tool provides a 'comprehensive view of scene organization structure, including nested collections and object membership', which helps the agent understand behavioral traits like speed and output structure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter names in the 'Examples' section that are already in the schema) and could be slightly more streamlined. Overall, most sentences earn their place by adding context or guidance.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, performance context, and examples, providing all necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without over-explaining.

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 both parameters ('include_objects' and 'object_details') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing examples of parameter combinations (e.g., 'Simple list: include_objects=false, object_details=false'), but doesn't explain semantics or usage nuances not already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('collections in the current Blender scene'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'blender_create_collection' by emphasizing it's for listing rather than creating. The title 'List Scene Collections' reinforces this clarity.

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 explicitly states 'Use when: Understanding scene structure, managing assets, planning organization' and 'Don't use when: Creating new collections (use create_collection instead)', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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