List all relationships among DOP objects in a Houdini dynamic network by providing the node path, making object connections visible for debugging or scene analysis.
List all relationships between DOP objects.
Args: node_path: DOP network node path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, whether it requires a valid node_path, or any side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't add behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 and front-loaded with the main action, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The Args section adds minimal value and could be expanded with useful context.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what relationships are returned, how they are formatted, or how this tool fits with related DOP tools. An agent would need to guess at the return structure and usage.
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%, and the description only restates the parameter name ('node_path: DOP network node path.') without adding format, examples, or semantics. The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the schema's type string.
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 clear verb and resource ('List all relationships between DOP objects'), which distinguishes it from many siblings. However, it doesn't specify what a 'relationship' means in this context (e.g., constraints, connections, transforms), leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dop_object, get_dop_field, or list_dop_objects. The description only says 'List all relationships' without explaining the use case or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.