get_object_detail_summary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds context about the depth and content of the summary (topology, material, UV, bones), which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like response format, performance implications, or limitations, but the annotation covers the core safety profile.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('deep summary of one object') and then lists key aspects. There is no unnecessary verbosity, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only annotation, output schema provided), the description is fairly complete. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists, and the key details are captured. The ellipsis suggests more omitted content, but this is acceptable for a summary tool.

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 has one parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description implies the parameter is the object identifier ('one object'), but does not explicitly explain that 'name' refers to the object's name. This is minimally adequate but leaves some ambiguity, especially since no schema description is provided.

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 provides a 'deep summary of one object' and lists specific aspects (topology, material, UV, bones), making the purpose explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_object_info or get_model_blueprint, but the focus on 'detail' and listed topics gives reasonable distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. The description only describes what it does, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool 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.