isobject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers important edge cases: empty objects return True, arrays and other types return False. This provides useful context beyond the empty schema, though it doesn't exhaustively list every data type.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by key edge-case behavior. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 low-complexity validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states true/false outcomes for empty objects and arrays, though the empty parameter schema leaves a minor gap about how the Value argument is passed.

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 input schema has zero properties, but the description refers to a 'supplied Value', implying the parameter name. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds some meaning by introducing and capitalizing 'Value'.

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 ('Validate') and resource ('supplied Value is an Object'). It also distinguishes from sibling isarray by explicitly stating arrays evaluate to False, which is essential for 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?

The implied usage is clear (for checking objects), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The line 'Arrays and other data types will evaluate to False' hints that isarray would be appropriate for arrays, but it never says so directly.

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