list_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It partially meets this by describing return fields and noting it is a lightweight alternative. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what the default scope is (e.g., all objects vs current selection), or how filtering behaves beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core listing behavior and returned fields appear first, and the comparative usage note is kept to a single concise second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotation or output schema, and the description gives only a minimal return-field hint plus a single usage contrast. It is enough for a basic agent to attempt the call, but it leaves out default scope, ordering, and clearer guidance on choosing between list_objects and more specialized listing tools.

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 coverage is 67%, and collection and name_contains already have descriptions. The description adds some context by hinting that the type filter is useful when one only needs 'names of one kind', but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter definitions.

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 action ('List scene objects') and the returned attributes ('name, type, location, size and visibility'). It also begins to differentiate the tool from get_scene_info with 'Lighter than get_scene_info'. However, it does not fully distinguish list_objects from other scene-listing siblings like list_collections, list_cameras, or list_lights.

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?

'Lighter than get_scene_info when you only need names of one kind' gives a clear usage context and names a specific alternative. It does not explicitly say when not to use other listing tools or when to prefer more targeted siblings, but the guidance is more than merely implied.

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