ghl_object_list

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description reinforces read-only nature with OAuth scopes objects/schema.readonly and provides endpoint and version info. No contradictions; description adds useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is somewhat verbose with renaming explanation and documentation link. The first sentence is clear, but the meta-commentary about renaming could be distilled. OAuth scopes line is useful but front-loading could be better.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, standard vs custom objects, and provides a documentation link. Lacks return format details but is adequate for agent decision-making.

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% with one parameter locationId described as 'location id' and an example. Description mentions 'for a location' but adds no additional semantic detail or format guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'lists' and resource 'all objects (standard: contact/opportunity/business, plus custom) for a location'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_object_get_schema_by_key by mentioning the renaming and contrast with single-object lookup.

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?

Description provides context by contrasting with the ambiguous auto-generated name and noting it follows list/get_by_id naming. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like ghl_object_search_records or ghl_object_get_record_by_id.

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