list_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral details: document defaults to the active document, and type_filter performs a case-insensitive substring match with examples. This goes beyond a vague 'list' but doesn't describe return format or side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only operation.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by clear parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The tool is simple, and the description covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral traits. It is complete for making an informed invocation decision.

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 titles with no descriptions, so coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining the document default and the exact matching semantics of type_filter with illustrative examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists objects in a document and specifies the fields (name, label, TypeId, state). It distinguishes from siblings like list_documents (lists documents) and get_object (gets a single object) through the explicit object-listing scope.

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 use cases via parameters (type_filter for filtering by type), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_object or list_documents. No exclusions or alternative names are provided, leaving the context clear but not fully explicit.

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