search_child_objects

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 mentions 'robust automatic pagination,' which adds valuable context about how results are fetched. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality: searching child objects, optional filters, and automatic pagination. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main purpose and hints at behavior (pagination), but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how this tool relates to siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what results look like and operational constraints.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'optional filters' and 'robust automatic pagination,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. No additional parameter context or examples are provided in the description, so it meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for child objects of a specific parent object type' - this is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_assets_aql' or 'get_object_types', which might also involve searching or retrieving object information. The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage context through 'with optional filters and robust automatic pagination,' suggesting this is for retrieving child objects with filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_assets_aql' or 'get_object_types,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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