max_query_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that scanning short-circuits at `limit` and that `truncated: true` means 'more matches exist' rather than an exact count — a non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise misread. It does not state read-only safety explicitly, though 'List' and 'Returns' imply it.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then truncation caveat, then a scannable Args block. Each line carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant filler.

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 no output schema, listing the row fields (name, class, layer, material, verts, faces, pos, hidden, frozen, children) makes the return value predictable, and truncation semantics are covered. Minor gap: no note on cost/perf of scanning large scenes or default-limit rationale.

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 compensate, and it does: every one of the five parameters is documented with syntax examples (matchPattern patterns like "Box*", exact class names, empty = all), a numeric range for limit (1-2000), and paging intent for offset. This is meaningfully richer than the bare schema titles.

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 ('List scene nodes matching a filter') and clarifies the output shape ('compact rows, not full dumps'), which separates it from max_get_object and max_scene_summary. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives operational context (paging via offset, empty-string means 'all') but never says when to choose this over max_get_object for a single object or max_scene_summary for an overview. Usage is implied by the verb 'List' rather than guided.

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