object_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a retrieval operation ('조회합니다'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what '모든 객체' (all objects) entails in practice (e.g., all objects in current view vs. entire canvas).

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format of the object list), behavioral constraints, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured data.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'layerId' documented as optional for filtering by specific layer. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating 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 the action ('조회합니다' - retrieve/list) and resource ('캔버스의 모든 객체 목록' - all object list in canvas), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'layer_list' or 'object_select' which also involve listing/selecting objects, missing explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'layer_list' (lists layers) and 'object_select' (selects objects), the description offers no context for choosing between them, leaving usage unclear.

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