list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of whether schema existence is checked, permissions required, or what the output format is. No side effects or edge cases are disclosed, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 immediately conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no superfluous words. Perfectly sized for a straightforward listing tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not describe what the returned data contains (e.g., just names or full metadata), how errors are handled, or the role of database_name. For a tool with three parameters and no structured metadata, it should provide more context.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema: it mentions the types of objects (matching the enum for 'type') and the schema context, which clarifies the purpose of the 'schema' parameter. However, the 'database_name' parameter is not mentioned, and the enum values are already present in the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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') and specifies the resource ('tables, views, or functions in a schema'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_schemas or list_indexes. The scope (in a schema) and the object types are explicitly stated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage: when you need to enumerate tables, views, or functions within a schema. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_objects or describe_table), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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