modifier.list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Risk: read' is redundant. However, it adds 'maturity: L3' and 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' which provide some context about stability and invocation requirements. It does not describe what the tool returns or any edge cases, but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable 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?

The description is very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence includes some metadata about risk and maturity but omits the core purpose. It does not front-load the most important information (what the tool does) and fails to earn its place by adding no meaningful 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?

For a read tool that lists modifiers, an agent needs to know what to specify (e.g., objectId) and what to expect in return. The description provides none of this, despite having an output schema. It does not clarify the scope of the listing or any constraints, making it inadequate for even a basic read 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 has 6 parameters but only 4 (the _prefixed ones) have descriptions. The description does not explain any parameters, leaving 'name' and 'objectId' entirely undocumented in both schema and description. With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description should compensate, but it offers zero parameter semantics, severely hindering correct invocation.

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 it is a 'PartMe Blender Harness command modifier.list' and labels it as read, but never explicitly says what it lists or what resource it operates on. It relies entirely on the tool name for meaning, making it barely above a tautology. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like blender_modifier_add or blender_modifier_configure.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' which is about constraints, not usage context. No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for selection are provided.

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