objects_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description does add real value beyond them by disclosing the return contract (IDs and pagination), but it omits ordering of results and whether an omitted query returns the entire scene up to the 500 limit — behaviorally significant for a scan 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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the matching rule, then the return shape. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, all parameters optional, and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers matching semantics and the return contract adequately. The main missing piece is the default behaviour of an empty query, which matters a lot for a listing endpoint capped at 500 results.

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 carry all four parameters. It usefully contrasts substring matching (query) against exact type matching (object_type) and flags pagination, but leaves limit/offset semantics and the all-optional behaviour (what happens when query is absent) unexplained.

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 and resource ('Find objects') plus the exact matching semantics — name substring plus optional exact native type — and what comes back (IDs, pagination). It never names or distinguishes itself from near siblings like object_inspect, object_hierarchy, or object_data_read, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the matching rules: use it to locate objects when you only know part of a name or a type. There is no explicit when-to-use versus object_inspect/object_hierarchy, and no statement about what a call with no query returns, which is the most likely source of misuse.

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