list_shape_keys

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' plus the Returns note imply a non-destructive read, but it does not state what happens when the object is not a mesh, has no shape keys, or is not found, nor does it flag that it returns the reference (basis) key separately. Useful but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 list purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with parameter and return notes following in a scannable Args/Returns layout. The Returns line partly restates what the output schema already provides, but it is short enough not to be wasteful.

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 one-parameter read tool with a present output schema, the description covers purpose, the argument's constraint, and the rough shape of the result. Missing only edge-case behavior (no shape keys, non-mesh input), which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter carries only a generic title, so the description's 'object_name: Mesh object' is doing real work by constraining the argument to a mesh object rather than any object. It could still say whether the name must be exact or can be a data-block name.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource ('List an object's shape keys') and adds scope detail (values, ranges, options). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation siblings add_shape_key, set_shape_key and remove_shape_key by name alone, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus inspecting the object another way, and no stated prerequisites such as the object being a mesh or having a shape-key basis. The only contextual hint is the 'Mesh object' note in Args, which is implicit usage framing rather than real routing guidance.

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