blender_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains that 'view' returns log entries with filters and 'stats' returns metadata, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether data is ephemeral, if operations have side effects, or require specific permissions. It is adequate but not deep.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clean list of operations with their parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the term 'portmanteau' is obscure and could be confusing, slightly reducing clarity.

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, schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema (as per context), the description covers both operations and their parameters adequately. It does not need to explain return values since output schema is present. It is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic description. The description adds significant value by grouping parameters per operation (e.g., 'level_filter' for view) and specifying allowed values, which helps the agent select the correct combination. This goes beyond the schema's default descriptions.

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: viewing recent logs or log buffer statistics. It specifies two operations with distinct resource types (log entries vs. buffer statistics), and the context distinguishes it from sibling Blender tools, which focus on other aspects like mesh, animation, etc. No tautology, precise verb-resource pairing.

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 implies usage contexts for each operation (e.g., view for recent logs, stats for distribution) but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as for historical log analysis or comparison with other tools like blender_status.

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