list_objects

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, limits, or performance implications. Since the description carries the burden when annotations are sparse, this one-liner contributes little beyond the annotation itself.

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 sentence that is clear and to the point. It front-loads the purpose and contains no redundant phrases. This is an example of appropriate conciseness, though it may be too terse for behavioral transparency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The parameter schema documents all fields including optional database and object_type with defaults. The description, while minimal, is sufficient for a straightforward list operation; nothing critical is missing that an agent would need to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters (database, object_type, schema_name) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-related meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameters, and the description adds no extra value.

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 a verb (list) and resource (objects in a schema). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_databases and list_schemas by targeting objects within a schema, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_object_details which focuses on a single object's details. The core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_object_details is for fetching details of a single object, or that list_schemas/list_databases serve different scopes. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema and sibling names.

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