get_object_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe, non-mutating operation, and the description aligns with that by describing a read-style 'details' action. The description adds some useful context by naming curing hints, but it does not disclose error behavior, missing-object handling, or the full set of returned information.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the most distinctive detail (curing hints) efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter, one-object getter with a readOnlyHint, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the parameter is inferable, and it highlights the most decision-relevant output fields. However, because there is no output schema, the broad phrase 'details' leaves the full return shape unspecified.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter. The description says 'one object' and the parameter title is 'Name', which weakly implies the object name, but it never explicitly states that the name parameter is the object identifier or how it should be formatted. This leaves the agent to infer an essential part of invocation.

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 identifies a specific resource ('one object') and tells the agent what is included: details plus curing hints such as needs_apply_transforms and ngon_count. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from broader tools like get_scene_info, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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 this is a single-object lookup, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_scene_info, uv_get_info, or anim_get_info. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer the right context.

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