List child objects

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: pagination semantics ("truncated: true (with a note) when more children follow") and the per-child payload contents. It never states outright that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, and says nothing about ordering or failure behavior for an invalid ref, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then return shape, then pagination, then the sibling hand-off. No filler or repetition of schema detail beyond what is needed to frame the call.

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 5-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what a child record contains, that fields are optional per child, and how truncation is signalled. It lacks only ordering guarantees, error behavior for bad refs, and differentiation from the specialized listers, so it is close to complete but not airtight.

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 80%, so the schema already documents ref, limit, fields, offset and compact in detail. The description only adds that property values per child are optional (echoing fields) and does not clarify offset/limit interaction or when compact is worth setting. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the children of an object") and grounds it with concrete examples: cues of a sequence, items of a pool, executors of a page. It also names the return shape (name, class, address, index). It falls short of 5 because those examples overlap with existing siblings (gma3_cues, gma3_executors, gma3_objects) and the description never says how this tool differs from them.

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?

It routes one case explicitly to an alternative ("For the used and free numbers of a pool use gma3_pool_usage"), which is genuinely useful. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this generic lister over the specialized siblings like gma3_cues or gma3_executors, and no exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is largely implied by the examples.

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