list_foundation_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions Foundation Objects are reference/master data, but does not disclose default pagination, return format, authentication needs, or side effects. The schema hints at behavior (max_results) but the description does not.

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 three sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description only covers the concept of Foundation Objects. It omits details on return structure, pagination, and authentication, making it incomplete for a complex tool.

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 only 38%. The description adds value for fo_type (friendly names) but does not explain other parameters like filter_expr, select, or auth credentials. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 lists Foundation Objects of any type, and explicitly mentions it can use friendly names or direct entity names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mdf_objects and get_org_structure.

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 guidance on how to specify the FO type (friendly names or direct names), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_mdf_objects. It gives context but lacks exclusions.

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