list_modifiers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it lists modifiers, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the object does not exist, whether it returns an error, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema could handle return format, but the description does not reference it or add any behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is perfectly concise and gets to the point immediately. No fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as error handling, typical usage scenarios, or notes about the returned structure. An agent might call it without knowing how to interpret potential failures, but the basic action is clear.

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 for documenting the parameter. It mentions 'on an object' which implies the object_name parameter, but provides no additional detail about the required format, type, or any constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not add meaningful value 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 clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (modifiers on an object). It is specific enough to distinguish from modifier mutation tools like add_modifier or remove_modifier. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternative or contrasting sibling, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., object existence), no recommended context, and no exclusions. The description simply states what it does without helping an agent decide when to call it.

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