get_infoarea_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List all objects', but does not mention pagination, the max_results parameter's effect, or any limitations (e.g., whether 'all' is truly all or capped at max_results). Without such detail, the agent cannot anticipate the tool's runtime 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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope. However, it is almost too terse—slightly more detail on the result set or usage constraints would improve it without harming conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, which likely covers return structure, so that gap is mitigated. However, the description does not mention the max_results default or that results may be limited, nor does it hint at any prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific InfoArea technical name). For a listing tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so both parameters (info_area and max_results) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema covers them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('objects within a specific InfoArea'), which conveys the core action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_infoobjects or list_adsos, leaving ambiguity about what 'objects' encompasses and how this differs from related listings.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context where it should be preferred, or situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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