list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only statement alone adds little. However, the description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the response includes a count field and by documenting the wildcard behavior for namePattern (* as wildcard, e.g. Box*). These are useful behavioral details not present in the structured fields.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose and filters, then adds the read-only usage context, and ends with the practical wildcard example. The bilingual structure is slightly redundant but serves a clear audience need without padding.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: purpose, filters, pagination, wildcard syntax, and intended usage. The main gap is that it does not spell out the full return format beyond the count field, but the name and context make the list-of-objects result reasonably inferable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explicitly specifying the wildcard syntax for namePattern ('* as wildcard, e.g. Box*'), which is not described in the schema. The other parameters are already well-covered by their schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List scene objects', and clearly enumerates the filtering dimensions (superclass/class/layer/name wildcard) and pagination features. It also frames the tool as a read-only survey operation, which distinguishes it from the many mutation-oriented sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use: 'Read-only, use it to survey the scene first' (先摸清场景再决定操作). This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not name specific alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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