List objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that objects are listed and describes returned fields, but it does not state read-only behavior, permission requirements, error behavior, or whether listing has any side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and the return information efficiently.

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 output schema already covers return values, so the description needn't explain them in detail. For a simple read-style listing tool this is minimally adequate, but missing parameter guidance and behavioral details leaves clear gaps given the absence of annotations.

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 description does not mention the required `document_id` parameter or the optional `workspace` parameter and its default. With the provided context signaling 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 and resource ("List all objects in a document") and specifies the returned fields, so the operation is understandable without the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `inspect_object`, which is the main clarity gap.

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 phrase "List all objects in a document" implies when to use the tool: when an inventory of all objects is needed. However, it does not state when not to use it or direct the agent to alternatives such as `inspect_object` for a single object.

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