list_modifiers

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds that the result includes modifier type and settings, but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like ordering of modifiers, handling of objects with no modifiers, or potential performance implications. This is comparable to the get_calls example.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List all modifiers') and contains no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only list tool with a provided output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and what information is returned. The main gap is the under-specified parameter, but the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema reduce the overall need for additional context.

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 coverage is 0% for the 'object' parameter, and the description only mentions 'on an object' without specifying the expected format (e.g., object name, path, or ID). The description adds little meaning beyond the parameter name itself, leaving the agent guessing about how to supply the object identifier.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'modifiers on an object', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_modifier, remove_modifier, and list_lights. It also specifies the output content ('type and settings'), making the purpose 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?

The description implies the tool is for inspecting existing modifiers on an object, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_object_info or set_modifier_property. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts.

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