blender_compare_ref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it is coarse (not exact), crops both inputs to bounding boxes so position/scale are ignored, and returns JSON plus a color-coded overlay. It does not state whether the scene/model must already be loaded or that the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Coarse likeness check') and compactly packs the mechanics and return format. Slightly dense with parentheticals but no wasted sentences.

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 comparison tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is compared, what is ignored, and what is returned. It omits the meaning of the 'objects' parameter and any precondition about the active scene, so it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains azimuth/elevation as the render viewpoint and describes ref_image as alpha or plain-background, but it never mentions the 'objects' parameter at all, leaving that parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a silhouette-IoU likeness comparison between an orthographic render of the model and a reference image. It is quite specific about the computation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against nearby siblings like blender_validate_asset or blender_screenshot.

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?

It labels itself a 'coarse likeness check' but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent cannot tell from this text when to prefer this over blender_validate_asset or a plain render/screenshot.

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