blender_get_object_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the exact data returned (dimensions, mesh stats, etc.) and clarifying the deprecated alias behavior, which goes beyond the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose in one sentence, followed by a concise parameter clarification. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only info tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the scope of information returned. No critical gaps remain, such as error conditions or return format, because the output schema and annotations cover those.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining object_name as the target object and name as a deprecated alias, including the rationale for compatibility. This provides meaning the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific object'), and enumerates the information covered (dimensions, mesh stats, modifiers, materials, manifold check). This clearly distinguishes it from scene-level tools like blender_get_scene_info and other object-specific tools.

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 phrase 'specific object' implies a contrast with scene-level or batch operations, providing clear context. It also notes the parameter naming convention ('every other single-object tool uses object_name'), which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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