listConstraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all Constraints' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what format the results come in, whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient for quick scanning.

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 complexity of a list operation with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Constraints' are in this 3D modeling context, what the output looks like, or how the filtering/pagination works. The description leaves too many questions unanswered for proper tool selection.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (filters, limit, offset, parentId) with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 'List all Constraints' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Constraints'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'getConstraints' or explain what 'Constraints' are in this context, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'getConstraints' and 'deleteConstraints' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for listing all constraints versus getting specific ones, or how it differs from other list operations in the server.

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