list_gameobjects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states 'List all GameObjects in the scene' and does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, or the fact that maxResults caps the result set. The word 'all' is also potentially misleading given the default maxResults of 100.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity omits important qualification about limits and return behavior.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only behavioral guide. It does not explain the return shape, how maxResults interacts with 'all', whether inactive objects are included by default, or how this differs from query_gameobjects. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's output or handle edge cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. However, the description adds no extra meaning and even conflicts with maxResults: saying 'all' contradicts the parameter's purpose of limiting the number of returned GameObjects.

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'), a concrete resource ('GameObjects'), and a clear scope ('in the scene'). It is immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool query_gameobjects.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of query_gameobjects, inspect_gameobject, list_enemies, or other siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative descriptions are provided.

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