list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a useful operational detail (default limit of 100), but it says nothing about permission requirements, result ordering, pagination, or what happens when the limit is exceeded — real gaps for a listing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a clean Args block; every sentence earns its place. The triple-quoted docstring formatting is slightly noisy but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description could reasonably say what a returned object looks like (name/type/schema), but it stops at the input contract. For a simple zero-required-parameter read tool this is borderline adequate, not rich.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all three parameters get meaning beyond their names, including the fallback behavior for schema_name, the filterable type values for object_type, and the default value for limit. It stops short of 5 because the accepted object_type strings differ from the enum absent from the schema, but they are at least enumerated here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List database objects') and enumerates the object kinds covered, which lets an agent distinguish it from exec_* and describe_table siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling list_tables, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives implied usage through the default behavior ('if not provided, lists objects from current user's schema') and the filtering semantics of object_type. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_tables, list_schemas, or get_object_details, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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