max_query_objects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full load. It discloses that matching is case-insensitive and that detail=True enriches results with bbox, transform, material and user properties, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states that this is a read-only query, nor how the default limit of 100 truncates results, which matters for a scene scan returning potentially thousands of objects.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and parameter explanations following. Every clause carries information; the only flaw is the slightly telegraphic phrasing around detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the enrichment produced by detail is well covered. But for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, omitting limit and selected_only leaves meaningful gaps in what the agent needs to call it correctly.

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 explains name_pattern (wildcard syntax plus examples), class_name (matches classOf with examples), layer, and detail. That leaves limit and selected_only completely undocumented, meaning an agent cannot tell how truncation works or that selection filtering is even available.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Find scene objects', which tells the agent exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like max_selection, which overlaps when selected_only is used, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the filtering semantics (name/class/layer), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over max_selection or max_layers, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing.

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