blender_object_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate a read-only query intent through '查询', which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing objects, whether all listed attributes are always returned, or any execution constraints, leaving gaps beyond the basic read-only implication.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the specific data points returned. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the core return fields. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it versus blender_scene_summary, does not mention error behavior, and relies entirely on the output schema to communicate the result shape. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter object_name has no schema-level explanation. The description adds minimal value by linking '指定对象' to the object_name parameter, but it does not explain naming conventions, how to reference nested objects, or what happens when the name is invalid. The parameter is self-explanatory enough to earn a baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('查询' / query) and resource ('指定对象' / specified object), and enumerates the exact attributes returned: position, rotation, scale, mesh vertex/face count, and materials. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like blender_scene_summary or blender_run_code.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no reference to blender_scene_summary for scene-level queries or to blender_run_code for arbitrary operations, so the agent is left to infer usage context.

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