List CityObjects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It disclosees output contents and mentions filtering and pagination, which is useful. However, it does not clarify what 'selected attributes' means, how pagination results are returned, or any other behavioral constraints such as limits or read-only implications.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The main action and output contents are front-loaded, and the filtering/pagination capabilities follow efficiently. Every phrase earns its place.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of what will be returned and which capabilities are available. It is slightly incomplete because 'selected attributes' is vague and there is no statement about response shape or dataset prerequisites beyond the schema, but the core calling context is present.

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 only 25% (dataset_id only). The description compensates somewhat by referenceing filtering by CityObject type and pagination, which map to the 'types', 'limit', and 'offset' parameters. However, it does not explicitly define each parameter's behavior or add meaningful detail beyond the schema, leaving coverage incomplete.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('CityObjects'), and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, types, selected attributes, LoDs). Naming 'CityObjects' and supporting filtering/pagination is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cityjson_get_object or cityjson_query, so it stops short of full 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 tells the agent the tool lists CityObjects, but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as cityjson_get_object, cityjson_query, or cityjson_info. No when-to-use / when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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