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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it explains the difference between the resolved scene (what evaluate/render/export act on) and the stored tree, and warns that writing back the resolved form flattens instances, mates, and suppressed bodies. It also notes that the tool reports variables, components, configurations, and mates. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches the behavioral model.

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 compact three-sentence block that front-loads the primary purpose ('Load one of the authenticated account's projects and list its nodes') and then adds the key behavioral nuance about the authored flag. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the schema covers parameters fully, and there is no output schema. The description explains what the tool returns (nodes, parameters, variables, components, configurations, mates) and the critical resolved-vs-stored distinction. It does not describe output format or pagination, but for a read tool with clear annotations, this is sufficient. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'authored' parameter's importance but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema's detailed explanation. The projectId parameter is referenced in the description ('one of the authenticated account's projects') but the schema already covers it. This meets the baseline for high coverage without adding substantial extra meaning.

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 tool loads a project and lists its nodes with parameters, and frames it as for inspecting or describing an existing model. It identifies the resource (project) and the action (load/list), but does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, though the read-only intent is implicit. This is clear and specific, but not maximally distinct from other read-oriented siblings.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'for inspecting or describing an existing model' and advises passing 'authored: true' before intending to change the project. This tells the agent when to use the tool and how to configure it for a follow-up write. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., list_projects for enumerating, edit_nodes for modifications) or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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