List MoGraph Clones

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

With no annotations, the description reveals a key behavioral trait: it forces a scene pass to populate data. It also describes the return structure and error condition. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or detail performance impacts.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, behavioral detail, return format, and unsupported conditions. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential points: purpose, behavior, return structure, and failure modes. It lacks mention of any prerequisites or side effects beyond the scene pass, but is largely complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the handle parameter (must be MoGraph generator) but does not elaborate on max_count or include_matrix beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the target resource ('per-clone transforms from a MoGraph generator'), with examples of valid generators. The scope is well-defined, distinguishing it from general transform tools.

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 explicitly states when the tool is appropriate (for MoGraph generators) and notes when it is not supported. It implies the tool is for clone data, but does not name alternative tools for non-MoGraph objects.

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