list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool may return a validation error and suggests a fallback, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (though an output schema exists), nor does it mention any side effects or limitations beyond the error case. The error fallback hint adds some transparency, but more could be said about the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a practical fallback instruction. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does and provides a fallback for a known error case. It doesn't mention what the output schema contains, but the output schema itself is available to the agent. The only minor gap is not explaining what 'all objects' includes (e.g., nested objects, hidden objects), but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds no parameter info because none is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 function: 'List all objects in the current Cinema 4D scene.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('objects in the current Cinema 4D scene'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_scene_info, but the action is clear enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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 a clear usage context: it lists all objects in the current scene. It also gives an explicit fallback instruction: if a validation error occurs, use execute_python_script to traverse the object hierarchy manually. This is a form of when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool in favor of other siblings like get_scene_info.

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