particles-systems

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must make behavioral traits clear. It only says 'List particle systems on an object,' which implies a read operation but does not disclose what the response contains (e.g., names only, full properties, empty result behavior) or how an invalid object is handled. For a simple read tool this is minimal, but the burden is high without annotations.

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 a single short sentence that is fully front-loaded and contains no irrelevant information. It states the operation and the target in one breath, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description alone must explain the tool's function and expected return value. While 'List particle systems on an object' conveys the essence and is probably enough for a simple list, it leaves out what is actually returned (system IDs? names?) and does not address edge cases like objects with no particle systems. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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% because the 'object' parameter has no attached description beyond its title. The tool description reuses 'object' but does not clarify the accepted format (e.g., name, UUID, path) or whether it must be an active/selected object. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter name.

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 'List particle systems on an object' uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('particle systems'), with clear scope ('on an object'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from mutation-oriented particle tools like particles-add/remove/set, and from report-style tools like particles-report.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention how it relates to particles-report or particles-list, nor does it indicate any prerequisites (e.g., object selection) or when it would be preferable to other tools.

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