list_scene_visual_regions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies pagination ('page through') but says nothing about read-only nature, what a page contains, ordering, or behavior at end of results. An output schema exists, which relieves some return-value burden, but the behavioral profile of the call is essentially undisclosed.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency – there is room to add routing and parameter context without bloat.

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 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, one sentence is not enough. The output schema covers return shape, but an agent still lacks the manifest_path contract, paging semantics, and a reason to prefer this over list_visual_regions.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Layout-aware' weakly hints at the layout parameter, but manifest_path (the sole required field), limit, and cursor are given no meaning beyond their names and defaults.

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 verb ('page through') and resource ('visual regions') qualified by 'layout-aware' and 'bound to a CAD Scene Graph', which distinguishes it somewhat from the sibling list_visual_regions. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from list_visual_regions or get_scene_visual_region_context, so the agent must infer which of the near-identical listing tools applies.

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 no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (list_visual_regions, get_scene_visual_region_context). The only implied guidance is that it is a paging operation, which the schema already conveys via limit/cursor.

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