List JS objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what's returned (objects and function names) and that includeBody adds full source, but doesn't disclose read-only vs side-effect behavior, whether it requires authentication, pagination behavior, or what happens if the application has no JS objects. For a read/list operation it's acceptable but minimal.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose precisely. Zero wasted words or redundant phrasing. Every element adds information value.

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 tool has a simple purpose (list JS objects) and a 100% covered schema, so the description adequately covers the core function. However, it could benefit from noting that these are action collections and how listing function names is useful, and there's no mention of the output shape beyond 'function names.' For a simple read-only list tool it's sufficient but not thorough.

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 both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds meaning to includeBody by noting it 'includes full JS source' (relating it to the 'function names' mentioned in the description), providing context beyond the bare schema description. This bridges the parameter to the overall purpose, meeting the baseline 3.

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 states it lists JS objects (action collections) of an application and their function names. This uses a specific verb+resource (list + JS objects) and adds clarifying detail that it covers action collections and function names. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like appsmith_list_queries beyond naming JS objects specifically.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't explain when this is preferred over appsmith_list_queries, appsmith_search_entities, or other list tools. The scope is implied (lists JS objects for an application) but there's no when/when-not guidance or mention of standalone entities vs application-scoped.

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