list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns object names, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention required permissions, or describe error handling. The silence on side effects leaves the agent uninformed.

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 consists of three concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, the second offers an alternative, and the third suggests follow-up tools. No unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and sibling tools, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on output format, error conditions, and permissions, which are not covered by the output schema (none provided) or annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'list' and the resources 'user tables, views, or both' in a Firebird database, clearly distinguishing its scope from sibling tools. It also mentions that it returns object names.

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 direct when-to-use guidance by suggesting get_schema_summary as a richer alternative and specifying deeper inspection tools like inspect_table, get_table_constraints, get_foreign_keys, or get_view_source for individual names.

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