get_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (list and screenshot), a token-saving option (include_screenshot=False), and screenshot view orientation. It doesn't explicitly state read-only, but 'get' implies no side effects, which is sufficient.

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?

Description is well-structured with a clear intro followed by Args and Returns sections. It is not overly verbose, each sentence adds value, though the second sentence ('You can use...') is slightly redundant with the first line.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all parameters, return value, and behavioral nuances. It is complete for typical usage, but does not mention error cases or performance implications, so not a 5.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains doc_name as target document, include_screenshot with a cost-saving rationale, and view_name as screenshot orientation. This adds meaning beyond the schema's enum/default fields.

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?

Description states 'Get all objects in a document' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly differentiates from singular get_object by emphasizing 'all objects'. It also provides a purpose hint ('see what you can check or edit').

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?

Explicitly says 'You can use this tool to get the objects in a document to see what you can check or edit', giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_object or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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