list_uv_maps

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares the tool as read-only, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, error behavior, or object requirements), so it provides no extra value beyond the annotations.

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 very short (three words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise, and the non-English wording may hinder comprehension for many agents.

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?

With a single required parameter, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema present, the tool's core function is simple. However, the description lacks usage context, parameter guidance, and any elaboration on what 'UV mesh layers' means, leaving the agent to infer too much for reliable invocation.

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 parameter, object_name, with zero description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's role, format, or connection to the UV maps. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, offering minimal compensation, but the description fails to explicitly link it to the operation.

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 uses a clear verb ('Daftar' meaning 'list') and identifies the resource ('layer UV mesh'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_uv_map or remove_uv_map. However, the non-English phrasing and lack of explicit scope (e.g., 'for the given object') slightly reduce clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely declarative and offers no contextual usage information.

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