list_infoobjects

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 does not mention any filtering, pagination, return format, or performance characteristics. It only states the action and definition of InfoObjects, leaving out operational behavior such as whether it sorts results, how max_results is applied, or what happens when search_term is empty.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The action verb is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds concise, relevant context about what InfoObjects are. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan quickly.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values (covered by output schema) and parameters are covered by the schema. However, it lacks any usage context or differentiation from sibling tools, and with no annotations, it misses an opportunity to contextualize the tool's role in the BW system. It is complete enough for a basic call but not for informed selection among similar tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (info_area, max_results, search_term) are already documented with their purposes and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning or clarifications beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List InfoObjects in the BW system' with a specific verb and resource, and explains what InfoObjects are. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_bw_objects or list_infoareas. The purpose is easily understood without needing to open the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_bw_objects or list_infoareas. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the context of many similar list/detail siblings.

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