get_polyhaven_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a message indicating availability, but does not clarify whether it checks a setting or makes a network call, nor does it describe error behavior or safety profile. Basic transparency, 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple zero-param status check, the description is adequate: it states what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks specifics about the format of the message or how to interpret 'enabled' versus 'disabled', which could be useful in edge cases. Not a full 5.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and there is no parameter information to supplement.

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 checks if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('PolyHaven integration'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_polyhaven_assets and other integration status tools by naming PolyHaven explicitly.

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 as a precondition before using PolyHaven features, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No mention of 'use before downloading assets' or similar guidance.

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