get_object_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the informational scope (transform, topology, material, modifier), but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral details such as output structure or potential edge cases, which is acceptable given the simple read-only nature.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the relevant information categories. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only info tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: it names the object scope and the specific data areas covered. It could mention that the tool requires an existing object name, but the output schema and readOnlyHint fill in the remaining gaps.

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?

With one required parameter 'name' and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explicitly clarify that 'name' is the object identifier. It only says 'satu objek' indirectly, which implies the parameter refers to the object, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning or expected format.

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 'Info satu objek: transform, topologi, material, modifier' clearly states the tool fetches information about a single object, listing the exact categories of information returned. It differentiates from siblings like get_scene_info by focusing on a single object, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with overlapping tools like get_object_detail_summary.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_object_detail_summary, mesh_analysis, or get_scene_info, nor does it offer any exclusions or alternatives.

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