list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the tool returns (names, types, tags, and key properties) and the scope of its search (project or cell), but it does not explicitly mention whether it is read-only, how pagination works, or any potential side effects. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description could be more explicit about safe usage and edge cases.

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 extremely concise, with exactly two sentences that front-load the main action ('List all objects') and quickly provide the key details (scope and return content). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It specifies what the tool does, the optional filter, and what is returned. However, it omits any mention of pagination or performance characteristics, which could be relevant for a 'list all objects' operation, preventing a perfect score.

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 already provides a 100% description coverage for the only parameter (cellName) with an explanation of its purpose ('Optional: filter to objects in this cell (by label)'). The description's phrase 'or a specific cell' aligns with this parameter but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema already states. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and no additional parameter context is needed.

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 with a specific verb ('List all objects') and resource ('in the current project or a specific cell'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_object (which retrieves a single object) and get_project (which likely returns project metadata). The scope (project or cell) and returned data (names, types, tags, key properties) are explicitly defined.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need a list of objects in a project or a specific cell. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the mention of the optional cellName parameter gives usage context. However, there is no direct comparison to related tools like get_object or search_scripts, so it falls short of a 5.

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