List Managed Objects

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

Annotations readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already indicate safe read behavior and potential non-exhaustive results. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, filtering). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but some context is missing.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and without extraneous information. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, so the description should clarify what the list contains (e.g., IDs, names, types). It only mentions 'managed object types', which is vague. Adequate for a simple list but could be more descriptive.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. With no parameters, the description need not add parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 states 'Retrieve the list of all managed object types available in PingOne AIC', specifying the verb and resource. However, the tool name 'listManagedObjects' may imply listing instances rather than types, causing slight ambiguity. It is distinct from sibling tools like getManagedObject.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like queryManagedObjects or getManagedObject. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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