blender_list_objects

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation does not modify the scene, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the return format, whether it returns a simple list of names or full object data, or any other side effects/limitations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and a safety qualifier efficiently.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its non-destructive nature. It lacks detail about return values or use cases, but given the tool's low complexity, it is sufficient. However, it could mention that results can be filtered by object_type or limited.

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 does not mention the 'limit' or 'object_type' parameters. The schema covers one of two parameters with a description (object_type), and limit's name/constraints are self-explanatory, so the description adds no extra meaning. With 50% schema coverage, this is borderline; a parameter explanation would help.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('Blender scene objects'), and adds a safety qualifier ('without modifying the scene') that distinguishes it from mutation tools like blender_create_humanoid_character or blender_export_character_glb. The verb is specific and 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as blender_scene_summary or blender_status. The 'without modifying the scene' implies a safe read operation, but there is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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