get_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat: names are not unique IDs, which prevents an agent from misusing the returned values as keys. That is non-obvious context not present in the annotations.

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 tight sentence with the key caveat front-loaded; nothing wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the resource and the name-uniqueness caveat but omits pagination mechanics (defaults, max page size, iteration), which is the main operational detail an agent needs.

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% for both limit and offset; the schema gives only types, defaults and bounds. The description alludes to a 'bounded page', which hints at limit/offset semantics but adds no explanation of paging behavior, defaults, or how to iterate. With low coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 specific verb (read) and resource (object names and types) with a scoping qualifier ('bounded page'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_characters or get_scene_info, so an agent must infer the domain from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of related listing tools, nor any preconditions. The word 'bounded' implies pagination is expected but does not say when to prefer this over other enumerations.

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