list_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the listing behavior and returned fields (types, locations, visibility), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential performance implications, or edge-case behavior like empty scenes or invalid collection names. It adds some context but remains minimal.

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 concise with a clear opening sentence and a compact bullet list for parameters. It front-loads the purpose and contains no unnecessary filler, making it highly 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?

The description states the core returned data (types, locations, visibility) but lacks specifics about the return format (e.g., object names, coordinate system, hierarchy). Since there is no output schema, more detail would be beneficial. It also doesn't mention edge cases like empty scenes or invalid collections, leaving it only partially 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: object_type lists valid values, include_hidden explains its boolean meaning, and collection is described as an optional filter. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare types and defaults, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 lists all objects in the scene with their types, locations, and visibility, specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_lights and list_materials, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_scene_info or get_object_info, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of when to prefer it over get_scene_info or get_object_info, nor does it specify exclusions or alternative conditions. Given the extensive sibling list, this is a notable gap.

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