blender_get_object_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists the kinds of data returned (transform, dimensions, material slots, type-specific settings) and the output formats (markdown/json). No contradictions with 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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example sections, and every sentence adds value. The only slight redundancy is 'GetObjectInfoInput with the object name and response_format' plus the example, but it remains compact and readable.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return structure in depth, yet it still does. It covers the main output categories and type-specific data. Missing behavior for nonexistent objects or error cases, but overall complete for a read-only query tool.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters (name, response_format) and provides a concrete example, but it doesn't elaborate on the meaning of response_format values beyond 'Markdown summary or JSON', which the schema already enumerates. 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 opens with 'Get detailed information about a specific object by name'—a specific verb + resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like blender_list_objects (which lists all objects) and blender_get_scene_info (scene-level info). It further details type-specific data returned for MESH, LIGHT, and CAMERA.

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 to use this tool (when you need detailed info about one named object) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use blender_list_objects to see all objects'. It stops at implied usage.

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