List child objects

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does disclose the per-child return shape (name, class, address, index, optional property values) plus that results are paginated. It does not state that the operation is read-only, note any permission/auth requirements, or explain behavior on an invalid ref, so the coverage is good but not complete.

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?

One well-formed sentence front-loads the core behavior and scope, with the parenthetical examples earning their place by disambiguating 'children'. The trailing "Paginated." is terse but informative, and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned child fields in the description is the right call, and pagination is called out. What is missing is minor: how to discover valid refs and what happens on an unrecognized ref, which an agent might need for a listing tool whose sole required parameter is a free-form reference string.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including the rich ref syntax and the limit default. The description adds only a light gloss on 'fields' ("optional property values per child") and nothing on ref, limit or offset beyond what the schema says, so it lands at the high-coverage baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the children of an object") and immediately anchors the abstract term with concrete examples (cues of a sequence, items of a pool, executors of a page), which is genuinely clarifying. It implicitly distinguishes itself from single-object readers like gma3_get_object, but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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 examples imply the situation in which the tool applies, so usage is inferable. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g. when to prefer this over gma3_get_object, gma3_objects, gma3_dump, or gma3_cues), and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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