get_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions return value (object + screenshot) but omits details about side effects, error handling, permissions, or the non-destructive nature (implicit only).

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 concise with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear section headers for arguments and returns, making it easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter getter tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return value. Missing error scenarios or edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so description compensates by naming and explaining each parameter: 'doc_name' as document name, 'obj_name' as object name. This is basic but adequate; no details on format or constraints.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'object from a document,' with additional context about inspecting properties. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_objects', the singular form and specific language imply the distinction.

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 provides usage context ('to get the properties of an object to see what you can check or edit'), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as 'get_objects' or 'get_view'.

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