blender_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what it reports (status, version, engine, readiness) but doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., network calls, system checks) or performance implications. It doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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, concise sentence that efficiently lists the key outputs. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Perfect for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and what it returns. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., error behavior if Blender is not running), but those are not essential for basic invocation. Complex enough to warrant a near-perfect score.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to clarify. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter info is needed.

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 clearly reports the tool's purpose: checking connection status, Blender binary version, simulation engine, and system readiness. It uses a specific verb and lists the exact outputs. It is distinguishable from siblings, which are about setup, creation, modification, etc., though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 implies a health-check use case: one would call this to verify environment readiness before other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., before setup or export) nor when not to use it.

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