utility_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The description mentions the result is 'capped', which is useful, but it fails to disclose what the cap is, whether the listing is ordered, whether it includes all fields or just identifiers, or any error conditions. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a generic listing tool.

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 very concise: one sentence plus the parameter list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The parameter list is useful but takes up a line; it could be more compact by including types inline, but it is still efficient and each sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter options. However, it lacks details about the output format, pagination, or the specific cap. For a generic listing tool that can return many object types, more clarity about the result structure would be expected, but the simplicity reduces the need.

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 schema has only one parameter, 'obj_type', and the description enumerates the allowed values in the Args section. Since schema coverage is 0% and there are no enums in the schema, the description compensates by listing the valid types. However, it could add more meaning, such as what each type represents or how the string should be formatted (e.g., case-sensitive).

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 it lists every object of a given type, with a list of supported types. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'folder_list' and 'event_list' because it is a generic utility that can list various object types, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The verb 'list' and resource (object type) are specific.

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 usage guidance is implied: use this when you need to list objects of one of the provided types. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over the more specific list tools (e.g., 'folder_list', 'event_list'). It mentions the types it supports, which helps, but does not guide on alternatives.

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