list_uv_maps

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing that listing does not modify the object, the nature of returned data (though an output schema exists), or any error conditions. A minimal disclosure leaves the agent guessing about side effects and output structure.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it immediately understandable.

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 simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic operation. However, it lacks context about the tool's role within the UV workflow (e.g., that it is a non-destructive query) and leaves the parameter semantics vague, making it only minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'object_name' parameter. It adds the context that the object is the owner of the UV maps, but does not specify the expected format (e.g., name string, path, or identifier) or whether it must be a currently existing object. This is thin compensation for a completely undocumented parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('UV maps') with a clear scope ('on the specified object'). It clearly differentiates from sibling operations like create_uv_map, set_active_uv_map, and unwrap_uv, which involve creating or modifying maps, whereas this one lists existing ones.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it is a read-only operation, when it is appropriate to call (e.g., before unwrapping or baking), or mention complementary tools. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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