manage_blender_addons

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or limitations. It only states it is an alias, but does not explain the behavior of individual operations or any constraints. The agent is left to infer behavioral details from the parent tool.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the most critical information (compatibility alias, prefer other tool). Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 6 parameters and no required ones, the description lacks details on how to use each operation with the parameters. Despite having an output schema, it doesn't mention return values or error handling. The description relies heavily on the agent knowing the parent tool, leaving a significant gap in standalone completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists the possible operations (search, install_known, etc.), which adds meaning to the 'operation' parameter. However, it does not explicitly map parameters like 'query' or 'addon_name' to specific operations, so the mapping is only implied.

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 identifies the tool as managing Blender addons and lists operations (search, install, etc.). It also states it is a compatibility alias, which clarifies its role relative to blender_addons. However, it does not elaborate on what each operation does, but the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 says 'compatibility alias — prefer blender_addons', giving clear guidance to prefer the alternative tool unless compatibility is needed. It also states that operations mirror blender_addons, so the agent knows where to find details.

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