query_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one valuable behavior: distances are always in millimetres regardless of document Units. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, describe pagination or sorting behavior, or note any side effects or permissions. The unit disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 very short and front-loaded with purpose, followed by a critical units note. The final sentence about the input schema is largely redundant since the schema is already attached to the tool definition, but the overall size is appropriately minimal for a simple query tool.

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 tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the query selector structure, how path/limit/offset work, or what makes this distinct from list_* tools. The units note is the only contextual addition; much necessary context is missing.

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%, and the description provides no parameter semantics. The only reference is 'Input schema: diptrace://schemas/tool-inputs,' which merely points to the schema rather than explaining the meaning or usage of path, limit, offset, sort_by, or selector. This does not help the agent correctly populate parameters.

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 the tool performs a 'structured query over the normalized model,' which identifies the general verb and resource, but lacks specificity about what types of objects are queried or how structured querying differs from simpler fetch tools like get_object or list_components. It is not a tautology, but the purpose remains vague and does not clearly distinguish from siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like query_library_items or list_nets. The context implied by 'structured query' is insufficient, so the agent receives no decision support.

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