list_registry_tools

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that by using 'Lista' (lists). The description adds minor context by mentioning the catalog size and available categories, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return size, pagination, or potential costs. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists the valid categories in a compact way, and ends with a clear usage instruction. The category list is necessary for parameter understanding, and while it adds length, every sentence earns its place. It is not overly verbose for the information conveyed.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what parameters it accepts. It does not explain return values, but the output schema compensates for that. It could mention the read-only nature, but the annotation covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a catalog-listing tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining that the 'category' parameter filters the list and enumerates all valid category values (objects, materials, lights, etc.). This gives meaning beyond the raw string type and default, though it does not explicitly state that omitting the category returns the full catalog.

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's function: 'Lista el catálogo completo de tools de Blender' (Lists the complete Blender tools catalog), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying to use it before call_registry_tool, and it provides a filtering capability that is not present in other listing tools.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Úsala antes de call_registry_tool' (Use it before call_registry_tool), which indicates when to use this tool. It also lists valid categories for filtering, providing context for typical usage, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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