blender_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining what each operation does and which parameters it consumes, going beyond the raw schema. It doesn't cover edge cases or error behavior, but for a read-only help tool, this is not a significant gap.

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 about 120 words and structured as a clear bullet-like list. The first sentence provides a concise overview, and each operation line is purposeful and directly informative. No redundant or filler language.

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?

The tool has 5 operations and 6 optional parameters, and the description covers every operation with its parameter mapping. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The description fully addresses the tool's scope as a help/meta utility, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema's parameter descriptions are terse and generic (e.g., 'For help - specific function name'). The description significantly enriches semantics by linking operations to parameters, e.g., 'help: Comprehensive help... (use function_name, category, detail_level)' and 'list_tools: List all tools, optionally filtered by category'. This mapping is the key value and is not present in the schema.

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 opens with 'Get help, list tools, search, tool info, or categories', clearly stating the tool's five distinct operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the meta-help/utility tool, not a specific Blender feature.

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 maps each operation to its relevant parameters, e.g., 'search: Search tools by name or description (use query)' and 'tool_info: Detailed info for one tool (use tool_name)'. This provides clear usage context within the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like blender_api_docs. Still, the operations define their own usage sufficiently.

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