ai_chat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about using the blender-expert SKILL.md as system context and the fallback mechanism via ctx.sample()/Ollama, providing insight into operational behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains system context, third details model fallback. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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 chat tool with a simple schema, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains both functionality and operational details, though it could benefit from mentioning limitations or scenarios where other tools are preferred.

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 fully covers the single 'message' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are necessary given the schema's completeness.

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 function: 'Chat with the Blender AI assistant' and 'Provides natural-language help with Blender operations.' It identifies it as a conversational tool, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like script_execute. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named conversational_blender_assistant.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative references are provided. The description implies it is for natural-language help but does not explain when to choose it over blender_help or other assistant-like tools.

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