List Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add pagination continuity via 'next_offset' for additional pages, which is genuine value beyond annotations, but omits rate limits, result ordering, or whether paging can go stale.

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 compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, and 'verified CLI type' is vague phrasing, but nothing is wasted.

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 five parameters at 0% schema coverage, this tool needs more descriptive support than one sentence. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the scoping parameters (environment, space) and pagination limits are never clarified, leaving the agent to infer the core calling contract.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It lightly clarifies object_type ('verified CLI type') and alludes to offset-style paging, but says nothing about environment, space, limit, or offset semantics, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places. It also names 'next_offset' while the actual parameter is 'offset'.

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 and resource ('List modeling objects') and constrains it to 'a verified CLI type,' which maps to the object_type enum. It distinguishes the tool well enough from get_object (single retrieval) but never explicitly contrasts with list_spaces, the closest sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_object, get_dependencies, or list_spaces. The only procedural cue, 'follow next_offset for additional pages,' describes how to keep paging once invoked, not when this tool is the right choice.

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