List Objects

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-destructive operations. The description adds value by specifying that objects are 'tokenized' and 'owned by wallets', and mentions pagination support, which isn't covered by annotations. No contradictions 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the resource and ownership, the second lists filters and pagination. No wasted words or 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 the annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully describes parameters, the description provides adequate context for a list operation. It explains the nature of objects and available filters. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., structure of listed objects), leaving a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description mentions filtering by template, owner, FQDN, or geographic hash, which aligns with parameters but doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema. It also notes pagination, which relates to 'limit' and 'next' parameters, but this is already clear in the schema.

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 action ('List tokenized objects') and resource ('asset instances'), explaining that objects are created from templates and owned by wallets. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'dual_get_object' (singular) but not from 'dual_search_objects' or 'dual_public_search_objects', which might offer similar filtering capabilities.

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 implies usage for listing objects with specific filters (template, owner, FQDN, geo_hash) and mentions pagination support. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_search_objects' or 'dual_public_search_objects', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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