list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function (list objects with filters) but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, performance characteristics, or how it handles empty filters. 'List' implies read-only, but that is an inference, not a stated fact.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately lists the available filters. There is no redundant information or wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown) and the tool is a simple listing operation, the description is fairly complete. It covers the essential filter capabilities, and the output schema handles the return format. However, it does not mention what happens when no filters are provided (e.g., returns all objects), which could be inferred but is not explicitly stated.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions the filter criteria: type, collection, name wildcard, and selected status, which map directly to the parameters type, collection, pattern, and selected. This adds semantic meaning beyond the parameter names, though it does not specify the wildcard syntax or default behavior.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'scene objects', and enumerates the filter dimensions (type, collection, name wildcard, selection state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_lights and list_cameras, which target specific object categories.

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 implies the tool is for listing objects with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_lights or list_cameras, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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