List objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: every object comes back in a single page (a workspace has a handful), so no pagination is needed, and results arrive as structuredContent {objects}. What is missing is only minor, e.g. nothing about ordering or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it lists, how to use the output, and the return shape. The identity of the tool and its return shape are front-loaded before the routing advice.

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?

For a single optional-enum parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is sufficient: the agent knows what comes back, that there is one page, and which tools to chain into. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the response_format enum already documents the concise vs detailed difference in the schema itself, so the description need not restate it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the correct baseline at full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and enumerates what is returned: 'Lists the workspace's objects (record types): companies, people, deals and any custom objects'. It also contrasts with the sibling heliyos_objects_get, so an agent can tell the list tool from the get tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit downstream usage: use it to learn which object_type and schema_id to pass to heliyos_records_*, notes that custom objects need schema_id, and points to heliyos_objects_get for field keys. Both the purpose and the alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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