List scene objects

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: data originates from the persisted facts.objects record, the result is a closed-world inventory, and it lists the included fields. It does not explain include_dismissed behavior, but that is a parameter-level detail rather than a core behavioral gap.

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 terse sentences with the most important constraint front-loaded. Every clause adds meaningful information, and there is no repetition of the title or schema details.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the core source and closed-world scope are present, and the returned field names give helpful output context. However, the optional include_dismissed parameter is never described, and since the schema offers no descriptions either, an agent cannot fully understand how to use that flag. The definition is sufficient for a basic call but leaves a real semantic gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate for the schema's bare parameter names, but it does not explain include_dismissed or its effect. The listed items are output fields, not input parameters, and scan_id is only inferable by name. This leaves the optional parameter underspecified for an agent deciding whether to set it.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (scene objects), and sharpens the scope by naming the persisted source (facts.objects) and the inventory nature. The closed-world warning distinguishes it from tools that might return inferred or imported objects.

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 'closed-world' and 'ONLY objects that exist' phrasing implies this is the authoritative object inventory to consult, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose it over sibling tools like scene_imported_objects or scene_planes. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are provided, so usage guidance is mostly implicit.

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