get_object_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get detailed information' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, it does not explicitly state this or mention any other behavioral traits (e.g., no modifications, no permissions needed). The description is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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 short and efficient: two sentences that state the purpose and list the parameter. It is front-loaded with the main functionality and contains no superfluous information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description could have hinted at what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., position, dimensions, materials). It also does not reference any prerequisites or context needed. The description is minimal but covers the essential input, leaving the agent to infer output structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It states that 'object_name' is 'The name of the object to get information about,' which adds context beyond the schema's type and title. For a single, simple parameter, this is sufficient to guide the agent on how to use it.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific object in the Blender scene.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('object'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_scene_info' (scene-level) and 'execute_blender_code' (code execution).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'get_scene_info' should be used for scene-level information, or that 'execute_blender_code' might be needed for more complex queries. The description simply states what the tool does without any conditional or comparative advice.

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