scene_list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results are a flat (non-hierarchical) enumeration and names the returned fields, but it omits truncation/pagination behavior despite a default `limit` of 500, and says nothing about whether hidden objects appear by default.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every clause carries information — the field list and the two filter semantics. Slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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 listing returned fields is somewhat redundant but harmless, and the two filters are well explained. The notable gap for a 5-parameter list tool is the unstated default page size (`limit`=500) and the hidden-object default, which affect what the agent actually receives.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does well for `object_type` (enumerating the accepted classes, which the schema lacks entirely) and adequately for `parent`. It leaves `limit`, `name_contains`, and especially `include_hidden` (default true) undocumented.

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/resource (flat list of scene objects) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. 'Flat list' implicitly distinguishes it from the hierarchical `scene_tree`, but that contrast is never made explicit, and it does not mention `object_find`/`object_get` as alternatives.

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 description explains filter mechanics but never says when to choose this over `scene_tree`, `object_find`, or `selection_get`, all of which return overlapping data. An agent must infer the routing decision from the word 'flat' alone.

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