list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, querying, filtering, sorting, or any side effects. The only hint is the 'kind' parameter, but its behavior is not explained. The description is entirely uninformative about what happens when the tool is called.

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 extremely short (one phrase) but this is not conciseness—it is under-specification. While it is front-loaded with the main concept, it omits essential operational details. A concise description would leverage every word to convey useful semantics; this does not.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which exempts return-value explanation), the description fails to provide any context for using the tool. With 5 parameters, many sibling tools, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to know how or when to use it. Even basic information like 'lists objects of a specified kind' is missing.

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%, meaning the description provides no explanation of any parameter. The parameters (kind, limit, query, handle, offset) are not described at all. The description adds nothing to the input schema, so the agent must guess the meaning of each parameter from defaults and types alone, which is insufficient.

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 is a noun phrase listing object types ('Top-level objects: zone, guard_zone, ...') but never states a verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It implies listing but is ambiguous about the action. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools such as list_devices, list_plans, or list_drivers, which likely have similar semantics but for different entity types.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling list tools, the absence of any usage direction leaves the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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