blender_object_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that filtering is possible, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like response format (though inferable from schema) or performance implications. With good annotation coverage, the description's contribution is adequate but minimal.

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 short and to the point, with a clear separation of purpose, args, and returns. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by listing the filter options explicitly without relying on the schema alone.

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 has nested parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It mentions filtering but omits details about the output (e.g., what 'Object list' contains). The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description could be more informative for an agent.

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 description's 'Args: params: Filter and format options' adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which already has detailed descriptions for the nested properties (limit, type_filter, name_pattern, response_format). Since the schema provides these descriptions, the tool description fails to add value for parameter understanding.

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 states the tool lists objects in the scene, with optional filtering by type or name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_scene_list (which lists scenes) and blender_describe_object (which details a single object). The verb 'list' and resource 'objects' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., blender_describe_object, blender_scene_list). The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be preferred. Given the many sibling tools, this omission reduces helpfulness for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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