pointcloud-list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it describe output format, pagination, or any side effects. The phrase 'list' suggests non-destructive behavior, but lacks detail on what exactly is returned (e.g., names, IDs, properties) or whether it lists everything from all scenes or just the active one.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. There is no excessive detail or ambiguity in structure.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the scope of the listing (e.g., current scene, all scenes) or the format of the returned data. Given the low complexity, it's a minimum viable description, but the lack of context about scope and output limits its completeness.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying that the output includes 'objects and data-blocks', which clarifies the two categories being listed, but does not provide additional context beyond that.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing point cloud objects and data-blocks. It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pointcloud-report (which likely provides detailed reports) and pointcloud-set (which modifies properties). However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., all point clouds vs. current scene) and doesn't mention filtering or sorting.

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 that this tool is for enumerating point clouds while pointcloud-report might give more detail, or that pointcloud-set is for modifications. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given.

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