Inspect object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about failure behavior when the object name is unknown, whether the document must be loaded, or how workspace scoping affects the lookup. The only real disclosure is the field list, which is arguably return-value territory already covered by the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point because most of its payload enumerates return fields (type, shape, volume, dimensions) that the output schema already defines.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema that already documents returns, the description should spend its words on inputs and failure modes; instead it duplicates the return surface and leaves parameters and error conditions unaddressed.

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 description mentions only 'by name', giving no meaning for document_id or the optional workspace parameter, so it does not compensate for the reported 0% schema description coverage. An agent learns which inputs matter purely from the schema.

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 detailed information about a single object by name'), which clearly separates it from the enumeration sibling list_objects. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands just below the top band.

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 'by name' phrasing implies it operates on one already-known object, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite about the document being open, and no pointer to list_objects for discovery or to create_* tools for other purposes.

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