object.lookdev.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context: 'bounded object-local' and 'session identities for safe preview writes'. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Some terms like 'bounded' and 'session identities' are compact and slightly jargon-heavy, but the description stays 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 one-parameter, read-only tool with output schema and annotations, this is mostly complete: it identifies the target object, the categories inspected, and the preview-write use case. Missing details are the meaning of 'bounded' and 'session identities', and alternative-tool routing.

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. The single object_name parameter is self-explanatory and the word 'object-local' ties it to the target object, but the description does not explain what constitutes a valid object or how the name should be supplied.

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 specific verb ('List') and names concrete target categories: visibility, modifier, shape-key, and material-slot targets. 'Object-local' and 'bounded' clarify scope, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like object.inspect and scene.inspect.

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 phrase 'for safe preview writes' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use this tool. Given siblings like object.inspect, material.inspect, and lookdev.compare, more explicit routing would be helpful.

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