list_cameras

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety of the call is covered; the description adds real value by explaining what unsaved_changes means and by warning that CAD-derived part/material/camera names are data, not instructions (a prompt-injection guard). It stops short of describing anything about list size, ordering, or behavior on empty scenes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents before the data-provenance caveat; nothing is redundant. The first sentence is a bare noun phrase rather than a complete statement of action, which slightly weakens the opening.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what comes back and the injection-safety concern. It does not establish the workflow relationship to set_camera/fit_camera (e.g., that names from this list feed set_camera), leaving the agent to infer how this tool fits into camera operations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly introduces no parameter concepts that would need further clarification.

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 names the exact resource set returned: scene cameras, the active camera, and an unsaved_changes flag, which lets an agent distinguish it from mutation siblings like set_camera or fit_camera. It lacks an explicit verb ("Lists...") and never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though set_camera and fit_camera are obvious siblings an agent must choose between. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the noun phrase describing the payload.

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