List custom object schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the note about using the schema key with record tools, which is useful but not a deep behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations already imply.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core purpose in the first and a practical usage hint in the second. No filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers what the tool does and how to use the result, though it does not mention pagination or limits, which is acceptable for a listing tool.

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%, so the locationId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('custom object (and standard object) schemas defined in a location'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_get_object_schema. The scope (both custom and standard) adds precision.

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 provides clear context by noting the returned schema key is used with record tools, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ghl_get_object_schema or other alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions.

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