get_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'get details' without explaining what 'details' include, whether the operation is read-only, or any other behaviors (e.g., does it require specific permissions?). The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's effects.

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 sentence, making it very concise. However, it is overly brief and sacrifices informative content for brevity. It earns points for being front-loaded and waste-free but loses some for not adding value.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context. It fails to clarify what 'details' encompasses, does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_object_history, and offers no information about return format or behavior. For a tool with 4 parameters and no additional structured guidance, this is inadequate.

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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not elaborate on parameter interplay or defaults beyond what is in 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?

The description clearly states 'Get details of a Sui object by its ID', specifying the verb (get details), resource (Sui object), and method (by ID). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_owned_objects (which retrieves objects by owner) and multi_get_objects (which fetches multiple objects).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for single-object retrieval, nor does it exclude cases where batch or filtered retrieval (via multi_get_objects or get_owned_objects) would be more appropriate.

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