objections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly declares the operation read-only and clarifies that both standing and resolved objections are included, covering side effects and scope. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or return shape, but those are minor for a zero-parameter read-only list.

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; the resource and scope are front-loaded and the read-only qualifier is appended. Every word adds useful information.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description provides sufficient context to invoke it correctly: resource, scope, status coverage, and side-effect profile. It could mention the response format or pagination, but the absence is not critical for such a simple list operation.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the wording 'Every ... standing or resolved' reinforces that no filtering is applied.

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 identifies the resource exactly (Art. 21 objections), the scope (this store), and the status coverage (standing or resolved). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but 'Every ... has recorded' unambiguously means return all objections, and 'Read-only' separates it from mutation siblings like record_objection and resolve_objection.

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 intended use is implied: an agent needing the store's complete set of recorded Art. 21 objections would call this. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling record_objection/resolve_objection tools, nor any mention of alternatives or conditions.

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