List plate objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it notes that the id is 'stable', which is valuable for agents that need to persist references across calls. It also explicitly discloses the data fields returned, which is especially useful because no output schema is provided. However, it doesn't discuss ordering or pagination, though that may be unnecessary for a simple list tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and the data returned. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the title. The colon and the field list are efficient and scannable.

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 read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the operation scope (current plate) and the exact fields returned. The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the field list suffices without a formal output schema. No additional context is needed for an agent to use this correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description provides all necessary semantic context by indicating that it operates on the 'current plate', which is the singular implicit context. No parameter clarification is needed.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'List objects on the current plate.' It enumerates the returned fields (id, name, size_mm, transform), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_presets, which list presets rather than plate objects.

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 clearly implies usage: call when you need to see the objects currently on the plate and their properties. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined. Sibling tools like set_object_config or transform_object suggest mutations; list_objects is the read-only counterpart, which is evident from context.

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