invariance_dna_list_objects

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar for the description is lower. The output format '{data: DnaObject[], next_cursor}' adds useful behavioral context about the return shape and pagination. It does not add detail on auth, rate limits, or edge cases, but it's not required here given the annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose, filtering, output. Everything a caller needs is present, and no word is wasted. It front-loads the action ('List') and the core meaning ('Company DNA objects'). Ideal conciseness.

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 read-only list tool, the output shape and basic filter modes are covered. However, without an output schema, the description should probably address the meaning of the DnaObject type, which it only hints at with the examples, and the project_id field's role is left completely unexplained. The tool is otherwise minimally complex, so a 3 feels fair.

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 60% — the descriptions for q, kind, and cursor already exist, while limit is only schema-bounded and project_id has no field description. The tool description only restates 'Filter by kind or a free-text query q'; it does not explain kinky semantics, project_id's role, or how limit/cursor interplay with the output. It adds little value beyond the schema for the mostly already-described parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'List' + 'Company DNA objects' — and clarifies what those are: 'the canonical operational entities in a project's DNA graph (e.g. tickets, services, policies)'. This clearly states the function and implicitly separates it from sibling tools like invariance_dna_list_edges or invariance_dna_list_object_mentions, though it never names them. It's clear but not explicitly differentiated from siblings.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like invariance_dna_list_object_mentions, invariance_dna_list_edges, or invariance_node_list. There is no mention of when not to use it or what the other tools are for. The only implicit signal is the focus on 'canonical' objects, which is not enough to route the agent correctly.

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