stalwart_list_objects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists allowed obj_type values and the limit default, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or error semantics. 'Listing' implies a safe read, yet this is not made explicit.

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 compact, well-structured docstring with a two-sentence summary and a concise Args block. Every word contributes meaning, with no 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 simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any mention of alternative dedicated list tools or authentication requirements, which would further help an agent choose correctly.

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 has zero descriptions, but the description fully compensates by listing all valid values for obj_type and explaining limit as 'max rows (default 50)'. This adds complete meaning to every parameter.

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?

Description states 'Generic listing for admin object types' and enumerates all supported object types, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling dedicated list tools (e.g., stalwart_list_accounts) by being explicitly generic.

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 on when to use this generic tool versus the specific list tools for accounts, domains, etc. The description implies a fallback role but does not explicitly state when to prefer it or when not to use it.

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