rs_get_station_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates that by default it returns a list, and with bbox=true it adds bounding box and position data. However, it does not mention if it is a read-only operation, performance implications, or return structure beyond that.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the main purpose and the optional parameter without any fluff or redundant phrases.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and optional parameter. However, it does not specify the default output structure (e.g., names, IDs) or any ordering, leaving some uncertainty for the agent. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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% (one boolean parameter with a description). The description repeats the schema info with slightly different wording ('Set bbox=true for bounding box and position data'), adding minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all objects in the station'), with examples (robots, tools, smart components), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform different operations like collision checks or path creation.

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 provides a specific usage hint for the bbox parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rs_get_station) or when not to use it. The context is implicit but not fully fleshed out.

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