inactiveObjects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify output format (e.g., list structure, pagination), permissions required, or potential side effects (e.g., caching). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimal. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to effectively invoke it.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have clarified context (e.g., 'inactive' definition) beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 due to zero parameters.

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 'Get list of inactive objects' clearly states the action (get/list) and resource (inactive objects), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'inactive objects' means in this context (e.g., inactive ABAP objects, database entries) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'objectTypes' or 'searchObject', leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after system checks or during cleanup), or related tools (e.g., 'activateObjects' for reactivation), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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