download_sketchfab_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the scaling behavior (largest dimension equals target_size) and the return message content (object names, dimensions, bounding box), and warns about downloadability/access rights. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., adding to current scene, overwriting), error behavior, or whether the operation is synchronous. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by parameter details and examples. The parameter section is slightly redundant with the schema, but it adds valuable context and examples. It is not overly verbose, earning a high score, though it could be trimmed for tightness.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the return value (message with object names, dimensions, bounding box) and the scaling behavior. It also mentions prerequisites (model must be downloadable, access rights). It could be more complete by mentioning failure modes or that the model is imported into the current Blender scene, but overall it is sufficiently complete for common use cases.

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?

Despite the schema having no descriptions (0% coverage), the description provides detailed semantics for both parameters. It explains uid as 'unique identifier' and target_size as 'target size in Blender units/meters for the largest dimension,' with multiple real-world examples. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Download and import a Sketchfab model by its UID.' It specifies the resource (Sketchfab model) and the method (by UID), which is distinct from sibling tools like search_sketchfab_models or download_polyhaven_asset. This is a specific verb+resource+method formulation.

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 implies usage context: you need a UID and must specify target_size, with examples for common objects. It notes access rights must exist. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_sketchfab_model_preview or search_sketchfab_models, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references. This is implied usage but not fully explicit.

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