blender_modifier_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation and no side effects are hinted, but the description does not explicitly state that scene state is unchanged or how a missing/invalid object_name is handled.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool, the description and schema together cover both invocation modes sufficiently. It lacks explicit return-format or not-found error behavior, but the low complexity means this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3, and the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that omitting object_name switches to listing available modifier types. This helps an agent understand the optional parameter's mode-switching behavior beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('List') and the resources ('modifiers on an object' or 'available modifier types'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling modifier tools like blender_modifier_add, blender_modifier_remove, and blender_modifier_configure.

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 clear conditional guidance: provide object_name to list an object's modifiers, or omit it to list all available modifier types. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but inspection context is clear since this is the only listing tool among the modifier siblings.

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