list_objects

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about what 'objects' are, whether this reads current runtime state or config, or any limits. An output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the terse statement.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is concise, though it could stand to be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given one parameter, no annotations, an output schema, and many siblings, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what objects are listed, whether they relate to config or runtime, or how results differ from related tools.

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?

One optional parameter (printer) with no schema description (0% coverage). The description doesn't clarify its meaning or default beyond what's in the schema. With a single parameter and no schema docs, the description should compensate but does not; baseline for 1 param with low coverage is 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?

States a verb (list) and resource (objects registered in Klipper), which is clear enough for the action. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like get_config_file or get_printer_status, and 'objects' is vague compared to other tools' specific domains.

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 versus alternatives such as get_config_file or validate_config. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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