get_blendfile_summary_usage_guess

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds that it returns a certainty score, which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., if the file has no recognizable use-cases) or any error conditions. Given the annotation covers safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with the output format appended. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only, no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what to expect (a scored guess) and implicitly that it operates on the current blend file. Minor omissions like prerequisites (e.g., an open file) are unlikely given the domain and siblings, so this is adequate.

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 are zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. The description adds the output format (score) which indirectly clarifies what the tool does. Baseline 4 applies for no-parameter tools; no further compensation needed.

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 states a specific verb ('guess'), a clear resource ('primary use-cases of the current blend file'), and the output format ('scored 0-100 with certainty'). It differentiates from sibling summary tools (datablocks, missing files, path info) by focusing on usage inference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or naming more appropriate tools for other scenarios. This is a clear gap.

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