get_objects

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

The description discloses the return value (list of objects and a screenshot), which is useful behavioral context. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, leaving a gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clear Args/Returns structure. Minor redundancy between the first two sentences ('Get all objects in a document' vs 'You can use this tool to get the objects in a document') prevents a perfect score.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input, output, and general purpose. It lacks detail on potential errors or ordering, but that is not critical for this level of complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by defining doc_name as 'The name of the document to get the objects from.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type and title. While not exhaustive, it provides sufficient context for the single parameter.

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 'Get all objects in a document' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_object' by explicitly saying 'all objects', and from 'get_parts_list' by referring to objects generally. The phrase 'see what you can check or edit' clarifies its purpose for inspection.

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?

Gives a clear use case: 'to see what you can check or edit' before interacting with objects. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_object or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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