List Objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (listing all tagged objects) and the scoping by device_instance, but does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid device instance), pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only (though listing implies it). This is adequate for a simple read operation but not particularly rich.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place—no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and no unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., device must exist) but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 provides only a type (integer) for device_instance, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds valuable meaning by clarifying that this integer represents a BACnet device. This extra context helps the agent understand what to supply, though it doesn't specify any format constraints beyond that.

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 specific action (list), the resource (tagged objects), and the scope (for a given BACnet device). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_devices (which lists devices) and get_object_value (which retrieves a value), without needing to inspect schemas.

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 when to use the tool (when you need all tagged objects for a specific device) but does not mention alternatives or any when-not conditions. There is no explicit guidance on choosing between this and get_tagged_topology or get_object_value, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool names and descriptions alone.

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