listVertexs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all Vertexs' suggests a read-only operation that returns data, but it doesn't specify whether this is a safe query (no side effects), what format the results take, whether there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undefined, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While under-specified in content, it achieves perfect efficiency in form—every word directly contributes to stating the tool's basic function without redundancy or structural issues.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Vertexs' are, how results are returned, or how this differs from similar tools. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide necessary context about the tool's role in the broader system, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all 4 parameters (filters, limit, offset, parentId). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 Vertexs' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'listVertexs' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates a listing operation on 'Vertexs', it lacks specificity about what 'Vertexs' are in this context (likely 3D modeling vertices) and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'getVertexs' or 'transformVertices'. The description provides the basic verb+resource but fails to add meaningful differentiation or context.

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 'getVertexs' (which might retrieve specific vertices) and 'transformVertices' (which modifies vertices), there's clear potential for confusion, but the description offers no comparison or context about appropriate use cases. The agent receives no help in determining whether this is for browsing, filtering, or general inspection versus more targeted operations.

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