list_objectives

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it's a read operation (no destructive behavior), covers pagination and filtering behavior, and specifies the return format. However, it does not mention authentication needs or rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by Args, Returns, and an Example. Every part adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description provides a return type and example, making it fairly complete for a list tool with pagination. It lacks error handling or authentication details, but those are not critical for basic usage.

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 description coverage is low (33%), but the description adds meaning for all parameters: clarifies 'ids' as comma-separated, specifies default/max for 'limit', and default for 'offset'. The example output further clarifies usage.

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 the action ('List all objectives') and the resource ('from the OKRs API'). It also mentions filtering and pagination, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_all_objectives_with_key_results'.

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 implies usage for listing objectives but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The mention of 'No Beta MCP equivalent' provides context but not actionable direction.

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