get_polyhaven_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a message but does not mention side effects (likely none), permissions, or error conditions. For a simple status check, this is acceptable but could be improved by noting it is read-only and has no destructive effects.

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 two short sentences with no superfluous words, achieving high conciseness and clarity.

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 status check tool with no parameters and a straightforward function, the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks mention of error cases (e.g., if Blender is not running) and preconditions (e.g., PolyHaven addon installed), which would enhance completeness given the sibling tools that depend on its result.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by specifying the output is a message about integration availability, which goes beyond the schema.

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 that the tool checks if PolyHaven integration is enabled in Blender, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling PolyHaven action tools like search_polyhaven_assets and download_polyhaven_asset, though it could be more explicit about the nature of the returned message.

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 that this tool should be used before other PolyHaven operations to verify availability, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like get_polyhaven_categories, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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