list_study_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the primary action and does not disclose behavioral details like pagination behavior (limit defaults to 200), valid component values beyond examples, or whether a live SALOME session is required. This is a significant gap for a tool that has no safety annotations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes the key optional filter. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

The description is minimal but adequate for a simple listing operation, given that an output schema exists to describe return values. However, it lacks guidance on usage context, parameter limit semantics, and relationship to sibling tools, making it incomplete for an agent that must select and invoke it 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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only clarifies the 'component' parameter as an optional filter with examples (GEOM, SMESH). The 'limit' parameter is left completely unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of information.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List study objects', and adds an optional filter by component, which gives scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from related tools like get_study_info or get_scene_summary, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 get_object_info or get_study_info. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusionary cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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