list_paths

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. It only states the basic action without revealing important traits like whether the list is recursive, whether it operates on the current scene or all scenes, or what the return format is. This is a minimal but non-contradictory description.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity and one parameter, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the scope of the listing (e.g., current scene vs. all scenes), whether both Path2D and Path3D are included, or what the output looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description should have provided more context about the expected return.

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 schema description for scene_path is 'Filter to scene', covering its meaning. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further explanation about the parameter, but the schema already documents it sufficiently.

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 the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'Path2D/3D nodes', making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_* tools by naming a unique resource type (Path2D/3D nodes compared to scenes, scripts, shaders, etc.).

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 such as read_path, write_path_curve, or other list_* tools. There is no mention of context like whether to use it for inspection vs. modification, or any exclusion cues.

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