list_shape_keys

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It doesn't say what happens for objects without shape keys, invalid object names, or what the output contains.

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 extremely short but under-specified. It is a sentence fragment with awkward grammar, providing minimal information. It is not an example of good conciseness; it's simply too sparse to be useful.

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?

Even though the tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify that it lists shape keys belonging to the mesh object specified by object_name, nor does it describe the return structure. The output schema exists but the description doesn't connect the tool's purpose to it.

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 one required object_name parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what object_name refers to or how it is used, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema details.

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 'Daftar shape key mesh' is a near-literal restatement of the tool name, using Indonesian words. It conveys a vague sense that the tool lists shape keys, but it's grammatically awkward and doesn't clearly state 'list shape keys of a specified mesh object'. It doesn't distinguish from related tools like add_shape_key.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the required object_name parameter, prerequisites, or how it fits with other shape key or mesh tools.

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