object_details

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which align with the description's 'Get' verb. The description does not add further behavioral context (e.g., whether it retrieves all properties, or if it can be called multiple times without side effects). Since annotations cover the main safety traits, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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 (12 words) that conveys the essential purpose. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 straightforward read-only tool with no required parameters, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the three identification methods and the action. The lack of output schema description is acceptable since the return is likely standard object details. The description is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the three parameters (name, uuid, path). The description summarizes them ('by name, uuid, or path') but does not add new meaning or clarify relationships (e.g., priority when multiple provided). With high coverage, baseline score is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific object using name, uuid, or path. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about a specific object'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_objects' (which only finds objects) or other detail tools (e.g., 'material_details').

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 when to use the tool (when you have an object identifier and need its details) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. Given the large set of siblings, the lack of differentiation criteria reduces clarity.

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