read_soft_body

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 states the basic listing action but does not disclose how scene_path affects results, whether it reads from the current scene or a different file, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is minimal for a read operation.

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 immediately states the action and target with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and compact.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and parameter semantics. It explains the core action but leaves scene_path and the return format unexplained, which is a clear gap.

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 has one parameter scene_path with no descriptive coverage (0%), and the description does not mention it at all. The agent receives no explanation of what scene_path means or how to use it, making correct invocation ambiguous.

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 identifies the exact resource: SoftBody3D nodes, along with the returned properties (mass and stiffness). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like editor_set_soft_body_param or generic read_scene.

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 context on when to use this tool, no mention of alternatives, and does not specify whether it is intended for inspection versus modification. No exclusionary guidance or prerequisites are given.

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