list_uv_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the mesh has no UV layers, whether it errors on invalid names, or the return format. The only implicit behavior is that it queries UV layer info, but no consequences or side effects are disclosed.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a fragment, not a complete sentence, and it does not front-load actionable information. While it is brief, every word is vague, and it lacks the structure needed to be useful.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool. It fails to explain the return value, error handling, edge cases, or even the exact input semantics. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based solely on the description and schema.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'name'. The description mentions 'on a mesh' but does not explicitly state that 'name' refers to the mesh object name. No format, type, or meaning is added beyond the bare parameter name. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 is a noun phrase ('UV layers on a mesh, and which is active') rather than a statement with a verb. It implies the tool returns UV layers and the active one, but does not explicitly state the action (list, get, etc.). It partially distinguishes from siblings like create_uv_layer or set_active_uv_layer by indicating a read operation, but the lack of a verb leaves the purpose ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mesh_data or list_objects. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide between this and other list operations.

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