list_scoping_targets

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 signals a read-only enumeration by describing returned record types and fields, but never states side-effect freedom, what happens when there are more targets than the cap, or pagination behavior.

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 return categories are front-loaded and packed into one dense sentence with no filler. The trailing 'Args:' fragment is the only low-value element, since it names parameters it does not explain.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shapes need not be restated, and the description does enough to convey the three target categories. With no annotations and zero schema description coverage on both parameters, however, the definition leaves gaps an agent must fill by trial.

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 explain the parameters, yet it only appends 'Args: analysis_index, max_items' with no meaning attached. An agent must guess that analysis_index selects which analysis and max_items caps the result list.

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 concretely enumerates what the tool lists: named selections (with name, kind, entity count), geometry parts/bodies (name + geometry id), and existing analysis objects. That is specific enough for an agent to know what comes back, even though the wording leads with 'What loads and results can be scoped to' rather than a direct 'List scoping targets' verb.

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?

It ties the output to a downstream action ('the geometry id, to use with the location options of add_load_or_condition'), which implies when the tool is useful. It never states when not to use it or how it differs from the nearby list_addable_objects sibling, leaving the choice between the two listing tools to inference.

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