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 visible_only=true excludes hidden objects and layers, and that door/window blocks are represented as a single 'Block' object—useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns all objects by default, or any performance/pagination behavior. The description is honest and non-contradictory but not deeply transparent.

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?

Three sentences, all informative and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function and return fields, the second explains filters, and the third clarifies a domain-specific nuance. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is a simple read/list operation with 3 optional parameters and an output schema present, so the description covers the essential semantics. It could add a note about default behavior (e.g., returns all objects if no filters) or clarify that it is read-only, but the output schema and simple parameter set mean the description is largely 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 the meaning of 'type' (Wire, Rectangle, Circle, Block), 'layer' (filter by layer), and 'visible_only' (leaves out hidden objects and layers). This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema property names, though it does not specify exact string formats for layer/type values.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('drawing objects'), enumerates the returned fields (name, label, type, layer, visible, bounds), and clarifies that door/window blocks appear as one 'Block' object. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_selected_objects, get_object_geometry, and get_layers.

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 explains the optional filters (by layer or type) and the visible_only flag behavior, which tells an agent when to use this tool for listing/filtering objects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context signals and sibling list make the use case clear enough.

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