查询资源；支持类型和路径过滤

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — no mention of return shape, pagination behavior, or scope of results. Since annotations carry the burden and the description contributes nothing extra, this scores low.

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 extremely short, which is efficient, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than deliberate pruning. It repeats the title exactly and adds no information, so conciseness is not earned through informative content.

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?

With 6 parameters, a nested params object, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent lacks information about return format, filtering semantics, and result paging. This is a query tool that should document what it returns and how filtering behaves.

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 parameters, but it does not. It vaguely hints at 'type and path filtering' which maps loosely to the `type` and `pattern` parameters, but gives no detail on pattern syntax, limit/offset semantics, or the required projectId. Nearly all parameter meaning must be inferred from names.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 the many sibling query tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema. A query tool that overlaps with scene/node/operation queries should state its selection criteria.

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