inactiveObjects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if this requires specific permissions, what format the list returns (e.g., paginated, filtered), or any side effects like caching. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might interact with system resources.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words: 'Get list of inactive objects'. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity implied by 'inactive objects' in a system with many sibling tools (e.g., for ABAP or transport management), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the tool's role, output format, or integration with related operations like activation or deletion.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The description does not add or detract from parameter understanding, which aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, but it could briefly note the lack of filters or options for clarity.

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 'Get list of inactive objects' clearly states the action (get/list) and resource (inactive objects), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'inactive objects' means in this context (e.g., inactive ABAP objects, database entries, or other resources) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'activateObjects' or 'deleteObject', leaving the scope ambiguous.

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. For example, it does not specify if this is for auditing, cleanup, or monitoring purposes, or how it relates to siblings such as 'activateObjects' or 'objectStructure'. The description offers only a basic function without context or exclusions.

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