get_smart_object_definition_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the tool runs a structural Validate() pass and surfaces error messages, but says nothing about permissions, cost, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by an explicit Returns block that doubles as an output contract. Every element earns its place; slightly verbose in the field enumeration but the enumeration is the useful part.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by fully enumerating the return shape (definition_path, slot_count, activity_tags, policies, bounds, is_valid, validation_errors, default_behavior_count). Combined with the annotations, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this read 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 100% and the single parameter (definition_path) is already documented in the schema. The description names "USmartObjectDefinition" but adds no path format, asset-type, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Read back") and resource (object-level state of a USmartObjectDefinition) and enumerates the exact facets returned (tags, policies, slot count, bounds, validation). This is enough to distinguish it from slot-level siblings like get_smart_object_slots_detail, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives referenced. The agent must infer from the name and description alone that this is the summary-level read versus get_smart_object_info or get_smart_object_slots_detail.

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