list_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 disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but nothing states whether it is safe, whether graph_path must be an existing on-disk graph, what errors occur, or what the artifacts look like; the single sentence leaves the behavioral profile essentially unstated.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently stated, though the terseness contributes to the missing context noted elsewhere.

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 needn't be explained, but with zero annotations and a completely undocumented parameter, the description should clarify what the artifacts are and what qualifies a graph. As written, an agent knows only the tool's name-level intent.

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% for the single parameter graph_path, so the description must compensate. 'Bound to the graph' only loosely hints that graph_path identifies the owning graph; there is no detail on format (file path vs. ID), whether it must already exist, or whether other graphs are scanned.

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 concrete verb ('List') and a specific resource ('multi-scale render and hit-map artifacts bound to the graph'), so an agent can tell it enumerates artifacts rather than returning them. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like list_scene_visual_regions or resolve_visual_hit, and the domain jargon ('hit-map artifacts') is unexplained.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_scene_visual_regions, get_scene_visual_region_context, or resolve_visual_hit. The agent must infer selection from the name alone, with no exclusions or preconditions stated.

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