host_model_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does imply a non-mutating read via the verb 'Read'. But it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, permission or host-connection prerequisites, or whether results are a live snapshot vs cached — all material for a tool operating on a running host application.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the returned content. It is efficient, though it spends its limited space describing outputs rather than the parameters that most need explanation.

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 explained, but for a paginated host-read tool with 0% parameter documentation and no routing guidance among many similar read siblings, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it 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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate — yet it never mentions limit or offset or what pagination semantics apply (ordering, default page size, total counts). The two undocumented parameters are left entirely opaque.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the resource contents it returns (objects, IDs, parts/instance counts, painting flags), which is more concrete than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as host_model_detail or project_objects_read, so an agent cannot tell which model-reading tool to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to prefer among the many sibling read tools (host_model_detail, native_scene_read, project_objects_read, project_painting_read). Any usage decision must be inferred entirely from the name.

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