List Node Graph Asset Types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that results are filtered to templates actually addable in the scene-nodes space and that supported:false is returned when the maxon framework is absent. This adds meaningful behavior beyond the name and schema. It doesn't describe the full response shape, but the read-only enumeration nature is clear.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing distinct value: what the tool returns, how the IDs are used, and how the scene-nodes case differs from list_graph_nodes. The main purpose is front-loaded and the examples make the distinction concrete without bloat.

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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics: what is enumerated, how node_space affects results, and the supported:false edge case. It does not explicitly state the output structure (e.g., array of strings vs. object with supported flag), but enough is conveyed for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already documents node_space aliases and the default value well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by linking node_space behavior to the scene-nodes (neutron) case and clarifying how the results relate to apply_graph_description and list_graph_nodes.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Enumerate registered node-template asset ids for a node space.' It also distinguishes this from the sibling list_graph_nodes by explaining that these IDs differ from the net.maxon.corenode:* IDs reported for existing nodes, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 states the primary use case: these IDs are what you pass to apply_graph_description as $type. It also contrasts the scene-nodes filtering behavior with list_graph_nodes, giving useful selection context, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' formulation.

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