list_adsos

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'List' implying a read-only operation, but it does not elaborate on any side effects, pagination behavior, rate limits, or the format of the returned data. The description omits details about whether the operation is safe (read-only) or has any side effects, leaving the agent with minimal information.

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 and to the point, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous text. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and provides a brief explanation of ADSOs. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the core action. This is slightly above average because it avoids unnecessary wording while delivering the essential message.

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?

Although an output schema exists (per context signals), which clarifies return values, the description lacks guidance on when to use this tool, and does not mention any filtering capabilities or limitations beyond what the schema outlines. For a listing tool with optional filters, this is adequate but not fully complete, as it does not address usage context or behavioral characteristics that an agent might need to make an informed decision.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters: info_area, max_results, and search_term, each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema is fully descriptive and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 that the tool lists ADSOs in the BW system, with a specific verb and resource. It also provides a brief definition of ADSOs, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like search_bw_objects or list_composite_providers, though its specificity to ADSOs does distinguish it implicitly.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It only mentions that ADSOs are primary data storage objects, which is background information but does not explain when an agent should choose list_adsos over search_bw_objects or list_infoareas. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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