list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word "List" strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description lists returned object attributes, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, state permissions, or mention pagination/performance behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a concise usage note. The returned-field list is relevant and no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully document return values, and the usage note helps for a simple listing tool. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the unexplained `doc` parameter leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 only parameter is `doc`, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions "`doc`" but does not explain whether it is a document name, ID, handle, or object, so it adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema. This is a notable gap for a required parameter.

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 a specific verb, "List," and a clear resource, "every solid/shape object in `doc`," then enumerates the returned properties. It differentiates itself implicitly from siblings like list_faces, list_edges, and list_documents by focusing on solid/shape objects, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: "Use this to inspect state after each modelling step." That tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but it does not state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools.

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