blender.get_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one concrete failure mode (OBJECT_NOT_FOUND for a missing name), which is genuinely useful. It is silent on the read-only/safety profile, permissions, and whether the name is scoped to the active scene, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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 tight sentences: the payload contents are front-loaded and the error condition is appended without padding. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Returned fields are covered by the output schema (and restated), and the failure mode is documented, so an agent has what it needs to call and interpret a read. It could be slightly more complete by routing to get_objects for plural lookups.

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%, but there is only one self-evident parameter ('name'). The description adds that a nonexistent name is an error case, clarifying that name must identify an existing object; it still omits format details such as exact-match or case sensitivity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the full detail of a single object') and immediately contrasts with the plural sibling get_objects by scoping to 'a single object'. It even enumerates the returned detail, so an agent knows exactly what it gets without opening the output schema.

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 'single object' implies this is the singular counterpart to blender.get_objects, giving implied usage guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_objects, get_scene, or get_instances, and lists no prerequisites or exclusions.

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