model_object_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses very little. The phrase 'real class path' hints that the tool resolves something (aliases, inheritance, or a runtime class) rather than echoing the input, but that implication is never explained, nor is behavior on a bad path, permissions, or side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved partly by omitting information rather than by tight editing.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description is the only statement of return values, which it does cover at a high level. However, for a tool with three parameters and zero schema documentation, the definition leaves the meaning of two parameters and the resolution semantics of 'real class path' entirely unexplained.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'path' is loosely implied by 'one object'; work_dir and model_root are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess at path resolution.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and a specific payload ('one object's name and real class path'), which clearly separates it from list-style siblings like model_list_objects and property readers like model_get_property. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling 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 when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of when another tool (e.g. model_get_property or model_list_objects) would be the better choice. The agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.

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