list_cad_scene_nodes

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that nodes are immutable and results are paged; it says nothing about ordering, whether graph snapshots must be freshly built, error behavior for bad cursors, or the significance of the kind filter. Two traits are hinted at, but key operational behavior is missing.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is a fragment that is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise. Structure is fine; content density is too low for the tool's complexity.

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 not be described. However, a four-parameter, unannotated listing tool with a required graph path and a kind filter needs more prose than this one phrase to be callable safely and 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, and it largely does not. 'Page through' hints at cursor/limit, but graph_path (the sole required parameter), kind, and the integer cursor format are never explained in prose beyond 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?

The verb 'page through' and resource 'CAD scene nodes' give a clear core action, but 'immutable pre-semantic' is internal jargon an agent may not interpret, and there is no explicit differentiation from the sibling get_cad_scene_node. The purpose is inferable but not crisp.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this listing tool versus get_cad_scene_node or list_scene_visual_regions, nor any prerequisites such as when graph_path must come from a prior export step. It implies listing but not the conditions that select it.

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