list_vertex_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return structure and that the input should be a mesh object, but it does not cover failure conditions, ordering, whether zero-weight groups are included, or other operational details.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then Args and Returns. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 introspection tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, input type, and return contents, though it omits error behavior and finer usage context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that object_name refers to a mesh object, adding meaningful constraint beyond the bare string schema, though it could still specify object name versus reference format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing an object's vertex groups, including counts and weight ranges. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as assign_vertex_group, remove_vertex_group, and vertex_group_operation.

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 listing purpose implies inspection use, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives compared with the related vertex-group tools. Adequate but leaves selection context largely inferred.

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