list_examples

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavior disclosure burden. It reveals the return structure (array of { name, kinds, orientation }), the data source (examples/), and dynamic layout behavior (auto-flip based on orientation), going far beyond a bare 'list' claim.

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 longer than typical for a no-parameter list tool, but it is dense with useful guidance (return shape, cloning workflow, track-kind selection, orientations, auto-flip). It loses a point for slight redundancy, repeating 'ALWAYS call' and the call-first advice twice.

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 the tool's low complexity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states what is listed, what each entry contains, where it comes from, how to use it, and both supported orientations. An agent has all needed context to select and call this 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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details—correctly focusing on the tool's output and usage context.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('canonical scene examples bundled with the kit'), immediately differentiating it from siblings like list_icons and get_example. It also clarifies the return shape and source directory, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs to 'ALWAYS call this before authoring a new scene' and explains how to pick the closest example to clone. It provides detailed contextual guidance on selecting track kinds by content shape and covers orientation decisions, making it clear when and how to use this tool.

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