get_objects_by_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that IDs are comma-separated GUIDs and hints at batching, but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, how failures are handled, whether there is a batch limit, or what the response looks like.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the essential format detail for `ids`. It contains no filler, though the brevity means some important context is sacrificed rather than all sentences earning their place through added value.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no nested objects, so complexity is low, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers only the broad purpose and the `ids` format, leaving the `types` parameter, return value, and usage constraints unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents that `ids` is a comma-separated list of GUIDs, but it completely omits the optional `types` parameter, leaving its filtering semantics and allowed values undefined.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear object ('multiple object IDs') and delivery mechanism ('in one call'), so an agent can identify it as a batch lookup. It is less specific about which object kinds are supported and does not explicitly differentiate from the many single-object get_* siblings, so it misses full differentiation.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this tool is for resolving several IDs at once, but the description never explicitly states when to use it versus individual getter tools or gives any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer the decision boundary.

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