get_object_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the read-only nature (获取/returns information) and specifies the comprehensive data returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations (e.g., what happens if the object doesn't exist, performance considerations, or whether it works on all object types). The description adds value but lacks some behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, detailed returns section, and example calls. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the example calls more tightly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of returning detailed 3D object properties with no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It thoroughly documents the return structure including transform data, geometric properties, modifiers, materials, and state flags. This fully compensates for the lack of output schema and makes the tool's behavior completely understandable.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. The schema only shows 'object_name' as a string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description explains that this is '目标物体的名称（场景中已存在的对象）' (the name of the target object, which must already exist in the scene), providing crucial context about the parameter's purpose and constraints.

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 purpose: '获取 3ds Max 场景中指定物体的详细属性信息' (Get detailed property information for a specified object in a 3ds Max scene). It specifies the exact resource (object in 3ds Max scene) and verb (get properties), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_scene_info (scene-level) and get_scene_objects (list of objects).

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: it's for retrieving detailed properties of a specific object in a 3ds Max scene. It implies when to use it (to understand an object's current state) and distinguishes from siblings like get_scene_objects (which lists objects) and set_object_property (which modifies properties). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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