list_modifiers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description goes beyond that by specifying what information is returned (index, type, visibility), giving the agent a clearer picture of the read operation's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The action, target, and relevant output fields are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand and invoke the tool.

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 simple one-parameter listing tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential behavior and output fields. There is no output schema, so naming the returned attributes is valuable. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about what happens when the target object does not exist or how the object name is resolved.

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 only provides 'object_name' as a required string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description indirectly indicates that object_name identifies the object whose modifiers are listed, but it does not explain the expected format, such as whether it is a display name, path, or unique identifier. It adds some meaning but leaves the single parameter under-documented.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('modifiers'), and the scope ('on an object'), plus the return fields ('index/type/visibility'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling modifier manipulation tools like add_modifier, remove_modifier, and set_modifier_params.

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 makes it clear the tool is for enumerating modifiers, which implies its main use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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