get_scene_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns object information (name, type, position, hidden status, etc.) and supports filtering, which is good basic behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance with large scenes, whether it requires specific scene states, or error conditions. For a read-only tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, filtering capabilities, parameter details, return format, and examples. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and complex filtering options. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating filtering examples), but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (filtering by type/name), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of completeness. It explains the purpose, parameters, return format (including all fields in the objects list), and provides multiple examples. The main gap is lack of explicit behavioral warnings or prerequisites, but for a read operation, this is reasonably 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?

With 0% schema description coverage (schema only has titles 'Object Type' and 'Name Filter' with no descriptions), the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for both parameters. It explains object_type can be empty (all objects), superclass names (e.g., 'Geometry'), or specific class names (e.g., 'Box'), with examples. It explains name_filter supports wildcards like '*' and provides usage examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: '获取当前 3ds Max 场景中的所有对象信息' (get all object information in the current 3ds Max scene). It specifies the verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and the resource '场景中的所有对象信息' (all object information in the scene), distinguishing it from siblings like get_object_properties (which gets properties of specific objects) and get_scene_info (which gets general scene information).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to list all objects or filter by type/name. It includes examples of different filtering scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like get_object_properties (for detailed properties of specific objects) or select_objects (for selection rather than information retrieval).

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