list_all_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'list all' but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, its performance impact, or what data is returned. The description is minimal and offers no behavioral insights beyond the action.

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 one concise sentence with no filler, effectively communicating the core action.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks details about the output format or return values, as there is no output schema. It does not mention any limitations or behavior for empty results. For a basic list operation, it is adequate but could be enhanced.

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 describes both scene_path and signal_name with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond mentioning the cross-scene scope, which is already captured by the 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' and a clear resource 'signal connections across scenes', making it easy to understand the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'editor_list_node_signals' by its project-wide scope across scenes.

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 information about when this tool should be used instead of alternatives like 'editor_list_node_signals' or 'connect_signal'. It does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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