blender_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It discloses that stop kills the process, that start can open .blend files, and that scripts need the bridge addon. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., unsaved work on stop, read-only nature of status) and error handling.

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, using a bullet list for operations. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose and operations) is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 complexity of managing a session with five operations, the description covers the basics but omits details about return values (status output, script results) and error scenarios. An output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description could be more complete regarding expected outcomes.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, mostly repeating schema descriptions. It does link operations to relevant parameters (e.g., 'for start — path to a .blend file'), but does not explain format or constraints beyond 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 clearly states the tool manages a Blender GUI session and enumerates five specific operations (status, start, stop, run_script, demo). This provides a specific verb-resource mapping and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on session lifecycle rather than scene editing or rendering.

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 mentions that run_script requires the bridge addon, giving a prerequisite. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like script_execute or blender_status. No explicit 'when-not' or context for choosing among sibling tools.

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