read_occluder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it does not disclose expected return format, whether it operates on the current scene or a specified scene, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately compact for a tool that lists specific nodes.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It fails to explain what the list returns, how the optional scene_path affects the result, or any behavioral context. The description is too sparse for a tool with these gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'scene_path' parameter at all. The parameter's schema is non-standard (anyOf with 'not': {}), and the description adds no meaning to the parameter name, leaving it completely unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool lists specific node types (OccluderInstance3D and OcclusionPolygon2D), using the verb 'List' with a specific resource. This distinguishes it from sibling read_* tools that target other node types.

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 implies usage when these node types need to be listed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is merely a functional statement without contextual direction.

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