query_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: the returned field set (id, class, group, position, orientation, scale, hidden, locked, holder) and a fixed page size of 500, which implies result truncation and paging. It does not state whether filters combine with AND or OR, what happens when no filter is supplied, or any error/permission behavior.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no wasted words, and the filter list is front-loaded. But the telegraphic, verbless phrasing and the run-on enumeration of return fields make it harder to parse than a couple of short structured sentences would be.

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 7-parameter filter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the filter meanings and the return shape reasonably well. The remaining gaps are combination semantics, default behavior with zero filters, and paging behavior when results exceed 500, none of which are addressed.

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 only 14% (only `session` is documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps ids, group, class, `near` (x, z, radius with explicit meter units), and `rect` (X, Z) to their meanings, and adds the non-obvious fact that group accepts either an id or a name. It falls short on how the filters interact and does not explicitly define the page parameter beyond the 500-per-page statement.

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 conveys that this retrieves objects by a set of filters (ids, group, class, circle, rectangle) and enumerates returned fields, which is enough to tell roughly what it does. However, it never states an explicit verb, and it offers no differentiation from siblings such as world_objects, read_scene, or object_ground, which plausibly overlap in purpose.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no named alternative among the sibling tools. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the parameter list.

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