world_objects

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are viewer-reported and completeness depends on simulator interest and viewer loading, warning the agent that output may be partial.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the availability caveat. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat vague about the practical consequence of the caveat.

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 small read-only tool with no output schema, the description should say more about what an object entry contains and how 'distance' shapes the result. The availability caveat is useful, but the return shape and parameter behavior remain unexplained.

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?

There is one parameter, 'distance' (default 32), with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never mentions it, gives no units, and does not explain whether it is a radius or a cutoff. With an undocumented parameter present, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List nearby objects') and clarifies the data source ('as reported by the viewer'), which distinguishes it from sibling listing/inspection tools like asset_inspect or ui_list_menus. No explicit sibling differentiation is offered, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'List' and the 'nearby objects' scope, but the description never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as asset_inspect or mesh_preview_camera, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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