get_dop_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly declares 'READ_ONLY' and discloses a key behavioral constraint: 'max_data limits data summaries' and 'does not return unbounded record content'. This provides useful safety/expectation-setting, though it doesn't cover all edge cases (e.g., object-not-found behavior).

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 extremely concise—two short sentences front-loading the core purpose, then providing a specific parameter limitation. No redundant wording.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description gives the essentials: purpose, method, and a key limitation. However, it lacks detail on the return format, error behavior, or how this tool fits among the many DOP-related siblings (e.g., get_dop_field, get_dop_relationships). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema provides zero parameter descriptions, and the description only explains 'max_data' (limits the number of data summaries). The other parameters (ctx, dop_path, object_name) are left to name-inference, which is fairly self-evident but not explicitly clarified. The description adds some value for max_data but does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('查询'/'query') and resource ('单个 DOP object'/'single DOP object'), and mentions the underlying method 'findObject'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_dop_objects' (multiple objects) and 'get_dop_field' (a specific field).

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 usage for querying a single DOP object, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The note about 'not returning unbounded record content' is a limitation, not a usage guideline.

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