get_local_transforms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') and does not explicitly mention side effects, return format, or any constraints. While 'Get' implies non-destructive, the description never confirms read-only behavior or what the output looks like, leaving the agent without essential 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 very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses few words, with no fluff. The parameter doc is a single line. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the brevity might border on under-specification. Still, for what it covers, it is well-structured.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., matrix, dictionary) or any behavioral details. With a single parameter and a getter operation, more context is needed for an agent to correctly interpret and use the result. The description covers only the basic purpose, leaving critical gaps.

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 provides minimal meaning for the single parameter: 'name: Object name.' This clarifies that the parameter is the object's name, which is helpful given the schema has no description. However, it does not explain any expected formats or additional details (e.g., if the name must be unique). For a simple getter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get the local (parent-relative) transforms of an object.' It is specific about what it returns and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling setters like set_object_transform. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify how it differs from other getters such as get_object_info, which slightly reduces differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools are provided. An agent must infer from the name that it is a read-only getter, but the description offers no explicit context for selection.

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