blender_scene_list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the read-only nature implicitly through 'list' but does not explicitly confirm that the scene is not modified, nor does it mention error cases or pagination. For a simple read tool this is adequate, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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?

Two short sentences, the main action is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. The filter examples are efficient. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return format), the description is nearly complete. It lacks only explicit mention of default behavior (e.g., returns all objects when no filter) and exact accepted type values, but these are minor gaps for a list operation.

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 schema only defines 'type' as string/null with no enum or description, giving 0% coverage. The description adds value by listing example values (MESH, CAMERA, LIGHT, EMPTY, CURVE) and the 'etc.' implies more are valid. However, it does not provide an exhaustive list or specify case sensitivity, so it partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 action ('List all objects') on a clear resource ('current Blender scene') and notes an optional filter. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like blender_scene_get_info (scene metadata) and blender_object_get_transform (single object transform), so an agent can tell when to use it without opening schemas.

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?

The description implies usage: to enumerate objects in the scene, call this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need object hierarchy, use blender_object_get_hierarchy). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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