get_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns 'a list of objects in the document and a screenshot of the document,' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. It uses three sentences efficiently, with no redundant information. However, the second sentence ('You can use this tool...') is somewhat repetitive of the first and could be more concise.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return values. The output schema likely details the structure of the returned list and screenshot, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as read-only nature or error handling.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'doc_name' as 'The name of the document to get the objects from.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, which only provides a title. However, it doesn't elaborate on format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters) or examples, leaving some gaps.

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's purpose: 'Get all objects in a document.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('objects in a document'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_object' (singular), which retrieves a specific object rather than all objects.

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 minimal guidance: 'You can use this tool to get the objects in a document to see what you can check or edit.' This implies usage for inspection purposes but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_object' (for a single object) or 'get_parts_list' (which might list parts). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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