get_data_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (retrieving a list) but does not mention authentication requirements (though implied by the input schema), pagination, rate limits, or possible errors. The behavioral transparency is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The main action and optional filter are front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly. Every sentence adds relevant information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail about the return format (e.g., structure of metadata, nature of HATEOAS links). The tool has moderate complexity (nested authentication object) and 2 parameters. The description is minimal and does not fully cover what the agent needs to understand the tool's output and usage context.

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 input schema covers both parameters with full description coverage (100%). The description adds minimal value by restating the optional filtering for 'type' and provides no additional semantics for 'sessionCredentials' beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of available data objects'), clearly indicating that the tool returns a list with metadata and HATEOAS links. It also mentions optional filtering by type, which helps distinguish it from more specific sibling tools like get_case or get_attachment. However, 'data objects' remains somewhat generic among siblings that also deal with data.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions optional filtering but does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tools for specific data object types. The agent is left to infer usage from context.

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