list_objects

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

Annotations include 'readOnlyHint: true', confirming safe read-only behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., no mention of ordering, pagination, or permissions), which is acceptable given annotation coverage but not exemplary.

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 with no fluff. However, it barely meets the threshold for informativeness; a slightly more detailed sentence could improve clarity.

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 the tool has two parameters, one required, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks details like whether the listing includes all object types or specific ordering, but output schema likely covers return structure.

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%; both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or usage examples beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 ('List', a specific verb) and the resource ('objects in a schema'), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_schemas' and 'get_object_details'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'list_schemas' for schema listing, 'get_object_details' for specific objects). It lacks context for appropriate selection.

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