get_sui_owned_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's purpose but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), mention rate limits, describe pagination behavior (despite a 'cursor' parameter), or explain the output format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space on redundant details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, network defaults, or output structure, which are crucial for correct usage. While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'address' as 'Sui address', 'query' as 'Optional: Query filter and options'), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate with additional context, such as examples of query filters or cursor usage, but it doesn't need to given the comprehensive 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 action ('Get') and target ('objects owned by an address'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_sui_balance' or 'get_sui_object' by focusing on ownership rather than balances or individual objects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_sui_coins' or 'get_sui_all_balances', which might overlap in scope, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid Sui address, or compare it to siblings like 'get_sui_coins' (for fungible tokens) or 'get_sui_object' (for specific objects). Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent must infer this from the tool name alone.

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