get_metaobjects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states 'Fetch metaobjects of a specific type.' It does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size (50), the fact that the response is a list, or any limitations/permissions. The parameter schema hints at pagination via 'after' and 'first', but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 sentence with five words, extremely concise and free of redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining the return value and behavior. It does not state that the response is a paginated list of metaobjects, nor does it mention the default limit or cursor usage. The description is minimal and under-specified for a tool with three parameters and pagination support.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented structurally. The description repeats the 'type' concept but does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (e.g., how pagination works or what the default is). This aligns with the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'metaobjects' and a clear qualifier 'of a specific type', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_metaobject_definitions (which fetches definitions) and mutation tools like create_metaobject/update_metaobject. It clearly states what the tool retrieves.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_metaobject_definitions, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextualizing the choice, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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