spatial_list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that objects are polygons, which is useful context but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, ordering, or completeness limits. With annotations present, the added value is moderate.

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 short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It omits essential context about parameters and usage, making it too terse to be effective.

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 simple listing tool, the description still lacks critical information: no parameter semantics, no usage guidance, no mention of return format or pagination. Even with annotations covering safety, the absence of param documentation makes it incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (fieldId, limit). The description provides no explanation of what fieldId refers to, how limit works, or any default behavior. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clarifies that the tool lists objects (polygons, e.g., states) belonging to a contextual field. While it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb statement, it distinguishes from siblings like spatial_list_fields and spatial_list_layers by specifying the resource type (objects of a field).

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 many sibling tools covering layers, fields, tasks, and uploads, there is no explicit routing or exclusions, leaving the agent 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.