list_blender_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds the behavioral condition 'currently have the FaceLink bridge running', which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or side effects; while 'List' implies a safe operation, the description could be more explicit about being read-only and non-destructive.

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, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no annotations, and an output schema exists), the description is complete. It states what it lists and the specific filter condition. The output schema covers return values, so no further detail is needed.

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 the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It appropriately avoids irrelevant information.

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 states the action ('List') and the resource ('Blender windows that currently have the FaceLink bridge running'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like facelink_health and get_blender_job by specifying the exact scope (only instances with the bridge active).

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 description implies usage when you need to enumerate active Blender instances. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling list; the agent can infer this is the tool for listing connected instances. No explicit guidance on when not to use, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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