list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, so safety of the read is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the prompt-injection warning that CAD-derived names are data and never instructions, plus what bbox returns (world-coordinate bounding box). It does not discuss ordering or pagination for large 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and return fields, then parameter guidance, then the data-safety note. Slightly sprawling across line breaks, but each sentence (including the injection warning) carries real information.

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 an output schema present, the return-value burden is off the description, yet it still names key fields. For a two-optional-parameter read tool it covers purpose, both parameters, and a security caveat; only cross-tool routing guidance is missing.

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 carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it defines material as a filter on scene parts and bbox=true as returning a world-coordinate bounding box with a concrete use case. Default behavior (bbox=false) and material matching rules (exact vs. substring) are left unstated.

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?

States the resource clearly (scene parts) and enumerates the returned fields (id, chemin, matériau), so the agent knows this is a parts/objects listing. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_scene_tree or list_materials, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied: the bbox explanation hints at when that flag is useful ('pour reconnaître une pièce par sa taille ou sa position'), and material implies filtering. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over get_scene_tree or get_scene_info.

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