Query Managed Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, stateless read operation. The description does not add behavioral traits beyond these annotations, nor does it contradict them. It is adequate but adds minimal value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose efficiently. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning that it supports filtering and pagination. It earns a 4 for being very concise but not maximally informative.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain return format, pagination behavior, or high-level usage patterns. The description should at least mention pagination and that the result is a list of objects. The absence of this context makes it harder for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across all 6 parameters, the schema already explains each parameter's purpose, constraints, and examples. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the verb 'Query', the resource 'managed objects', and the method 'CREST query filter syntax'. It specifically names the syntax and platform, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like listManagedObjects or 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?

The top-level description does not provide any usage guidelines, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives like listManagedObjects or getManagedObject. While the parameter descriptions within the schema hint at prerequisites (e.g., using listManagedObjects to discover object types), the description itself lacks this context.

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