get_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (a list of objects, and optional screenshot only when requested) and explains the with_screenshot parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention any potential side effects, though the verb 'get' implies safety.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a one-line summary, then clearly lists Args and Returns. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description is complete for a simple getter tool: it covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_object' and does not mention potential limitations or edge cases, which would make it fully complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values further.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters clearly: doc_name as 'the name of the document' and with_screenshot as 'attach a screenshot' with a default of 'no screenshot'. This fully clarifies the parameters beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get all objects in a document' with a specific verb and resource, and the word 'all' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_object'. This is a clear and specific purpose.

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 (when you want all objects in a document) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not reference the similar sibling tool 'get_object', which could cause confusion. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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