list_uv_maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list' without disclosing behavior such as what happens if the object has no UV layers, whether it returns an empty list, or if the object must be a mesh. The minimal statement leaves behavioral details unexplained.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. The action is front-loaded and the tool is trivial, so this length is appropriate.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and a 0% schema coverage, the description lacks context about when to use it, what object input expects, and any edge cases. For a simple list tool, it's barely adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'object' parameter. It only implies the object is a mesh via '网格', but does not explicitly state that the parameter is the object name or that it must reference a mesh object. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('list'), a clear resource ('UV layers' of a mesh), and a target (mesh). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_uv_map or remove_uv_map because it only lists. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'mesh' but '网格' implies mesh, so it's clear enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unwrap_uv or mark_seams. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., object must be a mesh) or exclusions. The 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.