blender_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral specifics like performance_monitor sampling CPU/memory/disk over a max 60-second duration and health_check checking tool registration, which enriches the annotations without contradicting them.

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-organized: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of operations. Each operation is described in a few words, with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and earns every sentence.

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 moderate complexity (7 optional parameters, output schema, and annotations), the description covers all operations and key constraints. It does not explain return formats in detail, but the presence of an output schema makes that unnecessary. A brief note on when to prefer this over sibling status tools would push it higher.

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 description coverage is 86%, meaning most parameters already have descriptive documentation. The description's mention of 'duration_seconds (max 60)' and the operation list adds minimal extra value beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, such as 'For performance_monitor — sampling duration (1-60)'. It does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 'System status and monitoring' and then enumerates four concrete operations (status, system_info, health_check, performance_monitor), each with a clear output scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like server_info or blender_help, even though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides context for each operation, making it clear what the tool can be used for (e.g., health_check for Blender availability, performance_monitor for sampling). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or point to alternative tools for overlapping needs, such as server_info for server details.

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