list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: each object carries a path, identification, and a short geometry/material summary, and that it avoids probing members individually. It does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset) beyond what the schema shows.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds necessary detail about the returned object contents. It is slightly dense but every clause 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?

For a list tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, the primary output field (path), and the selection aid (summary). It does not explain pagination usage, but that is apparent from the schema. The tool is simple enough that this suffices.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. It mentions 'one kind' without elaborating on the enum values, and it completely omits explanation of limit and offset. The schema's enum for 'kind' provides some meaning, but the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 model objects of one kind and provides each object's path for passing back as a reference. It specifies the resource (model objects) and the action (list), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_materials or list_phases beyond the generic 'model objects' phrasing.

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 by saying the path is 'the exact string every reference parameter accepts' and that it gives enough info 'to pick the object you mean without probing members one at a time.' It provides a clear context (use for selecting objects) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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