get_object_anchors

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent, adding that the output is 27 anchors in global space. However, it does not disclose potential errors, coordinate format details beyond 'global space', or other behavioral nuances.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous language, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices detail needed for full comprehension.

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?

The tool has one required parameter with no explanation, and the description does not provide context about what 'anchors' are in Blender or how to identify the object. Although an output schema exists, the lack of parameter context and usage examples makes the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has no description for obj_name, and the tool description does not explain what this parameter represents or how it should be provided. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantically empty.

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 returns 27 anchor points of an object in global space, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the specificity of '27 anchor points' differentiates it from general object-information tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or excluded scenarios, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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