objectTypes

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 only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing what is retrieved (e.g., format, scope, or limitations), whether it's read-only, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 purpose, the description is minimal but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'object types' are, the retrieval format, or behavioral context, which is inadequate for effective tool selection and 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Retrieves object types' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (object types), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'object types' refers to in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'loadTypes' or 'syntaxCheckTypes', making it somewhat vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'loadTypes' and 'syntaxCheckTypes' present, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred, leaving usage unclear.

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