list_objects

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the filter is case-insensitive and provides the output schema, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that listing is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor mention any performance implications (e.g., potentially large result sets). The verb 'list' implies read-only, but the description could be more explicit.

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 with zero filler. The output format is front-loaded, and the filter behavior is given concisely. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple listing tool but incomplete: it fails to explain the `selected_only` parameter, which is a core part of the tool's options. It also does not clarify scope (e.g., whether all objects or only top-level ones are listed) or any limits. While the output format is specified, the missing parameter explanation and scope ambiguity leave an agent with questions.

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 explains the `filter` parameter (case-insensitive match against name or class), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the `selected_only` parameter is completely undocumented; its default is `false` but what it does is not explained. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate for both parameters but only covers one, leaving a significant 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists scene objects and specifies the output fields ({handle, name, class, pos, bbox}). The verb 'list' and resource 'scene objects' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_selection or get_scene_info, relying on the name and context to imply the distinction.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that get_selection exists for selected objects or any exclusions. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and description, which is insufficient for deciding between similar listing tools.

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