list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The one added fact is that only ids (not full objects) are returned, which is useful but thin; no mention of ordering, volume, or empty results.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the id-only scope is stated up front. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why scope is unclear.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is not required to carry much. Still, for a discovery tool with six possible kinds, the definition leaves the agent guessing what domain it enumerates.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `kind` parameter is fully described in-schema ("Only the objects of this kind. Null for every kind."), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the filter or kind values, leaving this at the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List the ids of the objects"), but "the objects the server keeps" never says what an object is here. Sibling tools (profile, plan, cv, backtest, comparison, forecast) imply the domain, yet the description does not name any of them or distinguish itself from describe_object.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent wanting object details rather than ids gets no routing hint toward describe_object, and there is no statement of prerequisites or expected result size.

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