list_objectives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds value by specifying the return format (array with ID, name, time_frame, key result count) and failure modes (invalid token, empty list). No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise: three short sentences plus usage and failure conditions. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool: purpose, usage hints, return fields, and error conditions. It is completely adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but per guidelines, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. No additional value needed.

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 'List all OKR objectives' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_objective (single) and list_key_results. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other list tools, but the 'START HERE for OKRs' phrase provides context.

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 provides explicit 'USE WHEN' examples like 'Show OKRs' and 'What are our objectives?', which is helpful for selection. It also lists failure conditions (invalid token, empty list). However, it does not mention when to use alternatives like get_objective for a specific objective.

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