get_object_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get all object types') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if there are limits on the number returned). The second sentence explains what object types are, but this is conceptual rather than behavioral. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides conceptual context about object types. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence, while informative, could be considered slightly extraneous if the agent already understands object types from other sources, but it doesn't significantly detract from conciseness.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or output format. Without an output schema, the description doesn't clarify what is returned (e.g., a list of type names or full definitions), which is a gap. It meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement in context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'schemaId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the object schema to get types for'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all object types for a specific schema'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_object_attributes' or 'get_object_schemas' by focusing on types rather than attributes or schemas themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_assets_aql' or 'search_child_objects', which might also involve object types indirectly.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a schema ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_object_schemas' (which might list schemas before selecting one for types). Usage is implied through the parameter 'schemaId', but no explicit context is given.

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