list_modifiers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the object has rather than what the tool does. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, what happens when the named object does not exist, or how the modifier stack is ordered.

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 sentence with no filler and the core content is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to under-specification.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits important context: what 'name' refers to, what modifiers and settings are included, and what the return shape is. An agent would need to guess or infer several details before invoking the tool confidently.

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 provides 0% coverage for the required 'name' parameter, and the description does not explicitly state that 'name' identifies the target object. The possessive 'object's' weakly implies this connection, but the agent is left to infer the parameter's role.

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 names the resource ('the object's modifier stack') and hints at the content ('each modifier's key settings'), so an agent can roughly infer the tool's purpose. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit action verb, and it does not clearly differentiate list_modifiers from the many sibling modifier tools beyond the tool's own name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_modifier, set_modifier, remove_modifier, apply_modifier, or list_checkpoints. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context notes to help an agent choose correctly.

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