show_blender_status_app

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ('Prefab card with KPIs and system status'), which is not captured in annotations or an output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a Return Format section and an Example. Every section is useful and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides sufficient context: what it shows, the return format, and an invocation example. It could elaborate on what specific KPIs or status metrics are included, but the information is adequate for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps, giving a baseline score of 4.

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: 'Show Blender MCP server status as a rich dashboard card.' The verb 'Show' plus the resource 'Blender MCP server status' and output format 'rich dashboard card' make it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like show_tools_app or show_logs_app.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_status or server_info. It relies purely on the name and purpose, without saying 'use this when...' or 'instead of...'.

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