list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only listing and specifies output units in meters, but it does not explicitly state non-mutation, empty-scene behavior, or whether hidden objects are included. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the English sentence states the core operation and the Korean sentence adds scene context and use case. The bilingual restatement is slightly redundant, but both sentences earn their place.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete for a simple list tool. It covers what is returned, the units, and when to use it; no critical information is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers all input semantics. The description adds useful output context by mentioning names and sizes, which is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'List' plus resource 'mesh objects' and names the expected fields ('names and sizes'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. The Korean sentence adds that it is used for choosing an effect target, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions or rendering.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: '효과의 target 을 고를 때 쓴다' (used when choosing the target of an effect). It provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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