listMetaobjectDefinitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'id/type/name/description + field schema per definition,' but it does not mention pagination behavior (though the schema includes limit and cursor), rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only listing tool, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 at three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core function. The second gives a clear usage scenario. The third summarizes the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains the relationship with listMetaobjects but omits pagination details, parameter explanations, and any potential constraints or note about data volume. A tool with optional pagination parameters should mention pagination behavior.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for the parameters (limit, cursor). The tool description does not explain these parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess their usage. The description should have compensated by describing the parameters, but it did not.

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 'List all metaobject type definitions configured in the store.' It specifies the action (list) and resource (metaobject type definitions) and distinguishes itself from sibling tool listMetaobjects by explaining this tool discovers valid `type` values for use with listMetaobjects.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use this to discover valid `type` values... before calling listMetaobjects,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also hints at what the output contains, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives beyond listMetaobjects.

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