list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only enumeration but says nothing about result volume, paging, ordering, required privileges, or how object names are returned — material gaps for a catalog-wide 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?

Two short sentences, well front-loaded with the action and resource. Minor deduction for the open-ended '...' list, which is vague rather than informative.

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?

With two optional params, no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate — it lets an agent call the tool — but leaves an agent guessing about scope overlap with dedicated list_* siblings and about result shape/size.

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%: the 'type' enum-ish values and the 'schema' semantics (omit to search all schemas) are already spelled out in the schema. The description restates 'Optional schema and object type filter' without adding syntax or format detail, so it earns the baseline 3.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List database objects') with a parenthetical enumeration of object kinds, so the agent knows this is the generic catalog lister. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many single-kind siblings (list_tables, list_views, list_procedures, list_types), which overlap heavily with what it claims to return.

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 only notes that the schema and type filters are optional. It never says when to pick this broad lister over list_tables/list_views/list_procedures, nor what happens if type is omitted (does it return everything, including types with dedicated tools?).

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