list_objectives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether results are paginated, sorted, whether expansions unexpectedly expand the result set, or what happens when get_game_context is unset. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 efficient sentence with the filter semantics front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-required-param list tool with 100% schema coverage, this is adequate but incomplete. Without annotations, the description should at least note that filters are optional and how expansion defaults interact with the active game context, which the description never mentions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value by noting the type/stage filters, but it doesn't explain stage interaction with secret objectives (schema hints stage applies only to public) or the expansions default behavior.

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 (List) and resource (TI4 objectives) with optional filtering described. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling get_objective (retrieves a single objective) without needing to open either schema.

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 mentions optional type/stage filtering but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus get_objective or how omitted filters behave. The schema covers expansion defaults, but the description itself provides only implied usage guidance.

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