get_smart_object_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description needn't repeat it. What the description does add is the concrete return shape, which matters because there is no output schema — that is genuine additive behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the retrieved fields, followed by a compact return shape. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract, which is the main gap it needed to fill. The remaining omission is routing relative to sibling summary/detail tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (definition_path) is documented in the schema as 'Path to the USmartObjectDefinition asset'. The description adds no extra semantics such as expected path format or error behavior for an invalid path, so the 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 ('Get') and resource (USmartObjectDefinition) and enumerates exactly which fields are retrieved: slot count, activity tag set, and registered actor count. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_smart_object_definition_summary or get_smart_object_slots_detail, which an agent will almost certainly see listed alongside it.

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 at all, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite several semantically overlapping siblings (get_smart_object_definition_summary, get_smart_object_slots_detail). The agent must infer usage purely from the field list.

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