blender_status

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 reveal the read-only nature ('检查') and the returned data, but it does not state whether calling this can initiate a connection, what happens if Blender is unavailable, or explicitly guarantee no side effects, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 one sentence, front-loads the action ('检查连接状态'), and wastes no words. Every element—purpose, target, and output—is included without redundancy.

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 status tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete: purpose and return content are stated, and return details can be inferred from the output schema. It only lacks an explicit mention of connection-failure behavior or placement as a prerequisite step.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings the description must clarify. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds nothing misleading about parameters.

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-object pair ('检查与 Blender 的连接状态') and states a concrete output ('返回 Blender 版本等基本信息'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like blender_run_code, blender_scene_summary, and blender_object_info, which all target different operations.

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 use case is clear from the description: call this when needing to verify Blender availability/connection and retrieve basic version info. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but there are no plausible competing status tools among the siblings, so the context is sufficiently clear.

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