Get GeoGebra Objects

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 states 'List' which implies read-only, but it does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is safe, what happens if the session does not exist, or any side effects. It also does not describe the return format beyond the listed metadata fields.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List construction objects') and then specifies useful metadata fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return structure (e.g., is it a list of objects?), the meaning of 'compact', how to use the 'type' parameter, or when to select this tool over siblings. It is too sparse for a tool with 2 params and no other documentation.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (sessionId, type) with 0% description coverage. The description fails to explain either parameter's purpose. 'type' appears as an output metadata field, causing ambiguity about whether it's a filter. No guidance is given for sessionId, and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'List construction objects' with specific metadata fields listed (type, value, definition, command, visibility, defined-state). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that effectively distinguishes it from siblings like ggb_get_state (session state) and ggb_list_sessions (listed sessions).

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 when you need to inspect construction objects but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ggb_get_state or ggb_query_commands). It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context only inferred from the description.

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