list_invalid_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful scope behavior (excludes index/LOB partitions) and the semantics of the INVALID status, but does not state that it is read-only, whether results are paginated or ordered, or any privilege requirements. 'List' implies a safe read, but that is left to inference.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the defining filter criterion and followed by scope and parameter notes. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally say what a returned row looks like (name, owner, type, status) and whether the list is exhaustive. It covers the selection semantics well but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified for a read tool with zero structured support.

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 100%, so the enum examples for type and the 'omit to search all schemas' semantics for schema are already documented. The description only restates 'Optional schema and type filter' and adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (objects) qualified by a precise and uncommon criterion: status = INVALID, glossed as 'broken code needing recompile'. That criterion cleanly separates it from the many sibling listers such as list_objects, list_procedures and list_views, which have no status filter.

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 when this tool is relevant (you want invalid/broken objects) and notes the scope exclusion for index/LOB partitions, but it never says when to prefer it over list_objects or search_objects, nor points to a recompile/remediation tool. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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