blender_status

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

No annotations are provided, so description must bear full transparency burden. It mentions performance_monitor sampling duration limit (max 60) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or data persistence. Operations appear read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

Description is extremely concise with bullet-pointed operations under a clear header. Every sentence adds value: the opening line states purpose, and the bullets detail each operation. No redundancy or fluff.

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 status/monitoring tool with 7 parameters and no required ones, the description provides sufficient context for basic operation. Output schema exists (not shown), so return values are covered. Some operations like health_check could use more detail on what checks are performed, but overall complete.

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?

Input schema has 86% coverage, so most parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond schema (e.g., explains operation parameter roles briefly). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters well.

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?

Description clearly states 'System status and monitoring' and enumerates four specific operations (status, system_info, health_check, performance_monitor), each with a brief purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_info by focusing on Blender/MCP server health rather than generic server info.

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?

Description lists operations and their purposes, implying when to use each (e.g., performance_monitor for sampling). However, no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or what alternatives exist (e.g., config_get vs status). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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