list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation but does not disclose what happens when doc_name is omitted, whether all object types are included, or how visibility is represented. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and directly states the action and result, although it could add a brief note about the doc_name parameter without becoming bloated.

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 tool has one optional parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description fails to explain how doc_name affects the result or how this tool fits with sibling tools. An agent can invoke it with no arguments, but cannot reliably know how to target a specific document or when this tool is the right choice.

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 sole parameter doc_name has no schema description. The tool description does not mention doc_name at all, so an agent receives no guidance on what this parameter means or how to use it. This is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', names the resource ('objects'), and enumerates the returned fields: names, labels, types, and visibility. This helps distinguish it from list_documents, though it does not explicitly state that objects belong to a document or current scope.

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 list_objects versus sibling tools like list_documents or inspect_object. The description does not mention using the optional doc_name to scope the listing, so an agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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