blender_list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the result is a Markdown table or JSON list with name, type, and location, and that filtering is optional. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by well-organized Args, Returns, and Example sections. There is no filler; each section adds value.

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?

For a read-only list tool, the description covers input (optional filter/format), output shape (table or JSON with name/type/location), and provides a usage example. The main gap is not explicitly stating when to prefer a sibling tool, but that is partially handled in the usage guideline dimension; overall the description is sufficiently 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 description names both object_type and response_format and provides a concrete example. However, the example calls blender_list_objects(object_type=..., response_format=...) while the schema requires a single `params` object containing these fields, which could mislead an agent about the invocation shape. The schema itself provides useful parameter descriptions, but the example inconsistency prevents a higher score.

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 objects in the current Blender scene with an optional type filter. This distinguishes it from siblings like blender_get_object_info (single object) and blender_get_scene_info (scene-level info).

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: it is used to list objects in the current scene, optionally filtered by type. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when this list operation is appropriate.

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