get_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 discloses that include_screenshot defaults to True and can be set to False to save tokens, and that view_name controls the screenshot orientation. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, or performance implications beyond token usage. It's a read operation implied by 'get', but not explicitly stated as non-destructive.

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 with an Args/Returns section. It front-loads the purpose and provides practical usage tips. No wasted words, though the Returns section is minimal.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the basics but lacks detail on return structure, error cases, or how the screenshot relates to the object list. It's adequate for a simple read tool but could be more 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains doc_name, include_screenshot (with token-saving tip), and view_name (orientation). However, it doesn't detail the enum values for view_name beyond the schema, and the return format is only briefly mentioned. The description adds some value but not comprehensive parameter guidance.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all objects in a document' and explains its use case ('to see what you can check or edit'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_object (singular) and get_view, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'get' and resource 'objects in a document' are specific.

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: use this to get objects for checking or editing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_object for a single object. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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