get_object_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup operation, which is helpful but not explicit about side-effect-free behavior. It does not disclose behavior for missing objects, error handling, or the exact return structure.

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 a single short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and is relatively simple, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage. The description does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, what happens when the object name is invalid or missing, or what return format the agent should expect. This leaves important gaps for reliable invocation.

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% because object_name already has 'Name of the object' in the schema. The description adds a bit of context by specifying the object is 'in the scene,' but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning such as naming conventions, case sensitivity, or valid object name sources.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific object in the scene.' It indirectly distinguishes itself from sibling get_scene_info by focusing on a specific object rather than the whole scene. However, 'detailed information' is vague and does not specify what details are included.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need information about a named object in the scene. It does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_scene_info, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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