get_deployed_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns deployment status, runtime metrics, execution history, and performance statistics, and implies a read-only listing operation. It does not mention auth requirements or limitations, but for a list operation this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concrete use cases. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey return value nature. It mentions deployment status, metrics, execution history, and performance statistics, which gives a reasonable picture. It could be more explicit about output structure or the fact that both active and inactive objects can be listed, but overall it is adequate for a moderately parameterized tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds general context about what metrics and statuses are returned but does not provide parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'runtime/deployed objects', specifying it operates in SAP Datasphere. It distinguishes the tool from sibling asset-listing tools by focusing on runtime/deployed objects and monitoring use cases.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for monitoring deployed assets, tracking execution status, analyzing runtime performance, and identifying active vs inactive objects.' This provides clear use contexts, though it stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit exclusions.

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