listBlendShapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all BlendShapes' but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., paginated, sorted), or any side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sentence, 'List all BlendShapes', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could be more structured by including context or usage hints, but it's appropriately concise for its minimal content.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what BlendShapes are, how results are formatted, or behavioral aspects like pagination or filtering. For a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (filters, limit, offset, parentId). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as example filters or usage of parentId. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all BlendShapes' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('BlendShapes'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getBlendShapes' or specify what 'all' means in context (e.g., all in a scene, project, or selection). This vagueness prevents a higher score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getBlendShapes' or other list tools (e.g., 'listMaterials'). The description implies a listing operation but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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