blender_list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds behavioral context about what data is returned (transforms, dimensions, materials, modifiers) and that pagination and filtering are supported. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context beyond the structured metadata.

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 compact and well-structured. It opens with a clear summary sentence, then lists parameters in a docstring style with brief explanations. There is no redundancy or fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 read-only list operation, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, supported filters, and pagination. It does not detail the exact output structure beyond listing fields, but since no output schema is provided, this is sufficient. It also mentions the 'detailed' option to include more data. The lack of error-handling notes or edge cases 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?

The schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. It explains five of eight parameters (collection, type, name_pattern, parent, detailed) with concrete examples like 'MESH,LIGHT,CAMERA' for type. The remaining parameters (limit, offset, response_format) are either self-explanatory or already documented in the schema (response_format has a description). This is adequate but could be more exhaustive.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'List objects in the scene with transforms, dimensions, materials and modifiers.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like blender_get_object (which retrieves a single object) or blender_select_by (which selects rather than lists). The inclusion of supported features (filtering, pagination) further clarifies its role.

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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever a scene-wide list of objects is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is obvious from the verb and resource. It could be improved by noting that for a single object, blender_get_object is more appropriate, but the absence of that guidance is not a significant gap.

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