render_elements_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying it operates on 'currently added to the scene' elements and supports pagination, but it does not disclose return format, empty result behavior, or any engine-specific constraints.

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 bilingual description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The element examples and pagination note are valuable. The English/Chinese duplication doubles length, but that is purposeful for a bilingual tool, so it remains appropriately concise.

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 list tool with two fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about the expected return structure would improve completeness for an agent deciding how to consume the result.

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%, and both limit and offset already have clear descriptions. The description only repeats the pagination concept without adding new parameter details, so it provides little value beyond the input schema.

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 ('List') with a specific resource ('render elements currently added to the scene') and provides concrete element examples (ZDepth, Normal, ObjectID, Alpha, Reflection). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_element_add, render_element_remove, and render_element_set_output.

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 clearly defines the scope: it lists only current scene render elements, not engines or global render settings. It also mentions pagination support, which sets expectations for large result sets. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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