get_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get', implying read-only, but does not explicitly state it. No mention of side effects, permissions, or other behaviors beyond the obvious.

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 concise with two sentences plus an Args/Returns section. It front-loads the purpose. The second sentence ('You can use this tool...') is slightly redundant but not overly verbose.

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 the tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what returns (list of objects and screenshot). It does not explain the structure of objects or screenshot details, but that is acceptable with an output 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 single parameter 'doc_name' has no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The description compensates by including an Args section that explains it as 'The name of the document to get the objects from.' This adds meaning beyond the schema type.

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 it gets all objects in a document, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_object' (singular) or 'get_view', which limits clarity about scope.

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 description implies usage for inspecting objects before editing or checking them, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_object for a single object). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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