Describe C4D Entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only discovery operation through 'Dump', 'current value', and 'before reading/writing'. It also discloses notable behaviors in the handle explanation, such as plugin_options resolving to the plugin's settings BaseList2D and GvNode inheriting BaseList2D so describe works on it. It does not explicitly state side-effect freedom or error behavior, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 main description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and usage with no filler. The lengthy handle explanation lives in the schema where the complexity justifies it, rather than bloating the top-level description.

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 discovery/read tool with one parameter, the description is complete: it states the output fields even without an output schema, and the handle schema exhaustively covers all supported entity shapes. No critical calling information is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the handle description adds substantial value beyond the raw schema: alias forms for plugin_id like 'abc'/'fbx', default plugin_type behavior, GvNode path-id discovery via list_xpresso_nodes, and the advice to prefer path over name. This materially improves correct parameter construction.

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 states a specific verb ('Dump'), a specific resource ('description parameters of a C4D entity'), and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (id, name, cycle enum, current value). The phrase 'discover parameter IDs before reading/writing' separates this from value-reading/writing siblings like get_params and set_params.

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 situational guidance: use this tool to discover parameter IDs before reading or writing. The handle schema adds valuable context such as 'describe+set_params it to configure exporter options' and the GvNode stable path ID workflow. However, it names no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving some inference about where get_params/set_params fit.

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