list_render_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the response structure (parent_path/count/nodes) and documents an edge case: unknown ROP types are still listed with renderer="". It also mentions apply_response_cap. However, it does not state whether the listing is read-only or recursive, which are minor gaps for an enumeration tool.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then uses bullet points to detail response fields and notable behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 enumeration tool, the description is largely complete: it states the response fields, handles the unknown-type edge case, and mentions response cap. Minor omissions include whether the listing is direct children or recursive, and lack of an explicit read-only hint, but these do not significantly impair usability given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output description.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only references parent_path in passing ('under parent_path') without explaining its format, valid values, or default behavior. For a tool with a single parameter, the description should at least clarify that parent_path is a Houdini node path, especially given the schema provides no description. This lack of compensation for low schema coverage results in weak parameter semantics.

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 enumerates ROP nodes (ifd, opengl, karmarender) under a specified parent_path, using the specific verb '枚举' (enumerate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dop_objects or list_cop_node_types by focusing specifically on render nodes and including the renderer field.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list categorizable ROP nodes under a path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity to ROP nodes and renderer types makes its use case evident relative to generic listing tools like list_children or find_nodes.

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