blender_object_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but never states that it is non-mutating, whether Blender must be running, or what happens when the object name does not exist; it also gives no hint about the shape or size of the returned data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the returned fields with no filler. It is efficient, though the telegraphic noun-phrase style leaves room for a clarifying clause about the required argument.

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?

With no output schema, the description does list the return categories, which is the right move for a read tool. However, it omits preconditions and argument format for a tool that lives in a session lifecycle alongside blender_status/blender_start, leaving the agent to guess at invocation context.

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% for the single object_name parameter, so the description must compensate. 'For one object' signals that exactly one object is targeted, but it never clarifies whether the identifier is a name, path, or index, or whether the object must be selected/active.

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 names a specific resource ('one object') and enumerates the data returned (transform, dimensions, materials, mesh stats), which is more informative than a bare title. It is implicitly a read/getter, though no verb is used and it never contrasts itself with the sibling blender_scene_info, which covers the whole scene.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over blender_scene_info or blender_rig_info, and no mention of preconditions such as Blender being started. The agent must infer that 'one object' means it takes a single object name.

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